Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on August 16, 2013, 05:00:32 pm

Title: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: RSL on August 16, 2013, 05:00:32 pm
Back up to the goldfields yesterday. Lots of haze. Lots of layering.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Chris Calohan on August 16, 2013, 06:01:05 pm
Oooh, atmospheric perspective at its best.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on August 16, 2013, 08:02:42 pm
Nice.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 17, 2013, 01:30:59 am
Nice. Perhaps rather too much plain white sky, though.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Harald L on August 17, 2013, 03:03:03 am
Nice. Perhaps rather too much plain white sky, though.

Jeremy

Like it as it is. Any structure in the sky would distract from the fine layers in the background.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: brianrybolt on August 17, 2013, 04:44:44 am
Nice. Perhaps rather too much plain white sky, though.

Jeremy

+1
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 17, 2013, 10:49:40 am
Like it as it is. Any structure in the sky would distract from the fine layers in the background.

Oh, I agree. I was suggesting a crop. Had the poster been anyone other than Russ, I'd have dared actually to use the word.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: RSL on August 17, 2013, 11:06:24 am
Believe it or not, I think you have a point, Jeremy. I'm considering a crop! Actually, there's another range behind the last one visible here. Couldn't bring it up in Photoshop even though there was a B+W haze filter on the 70-200, so I may have to surrender and crop a bit.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Chris Calohan on August 17, 2013, 12:38:20 pm
At my own risk of being thoroughly flogged by Russ, I tried to find the other range but could not, but did find some nice filtering of light through some very distant clouds..so maybe a crop isn't really needed.

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3815/9529521889_1a14e7901e_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: RSL on August 17, 2013, 12:55:25 pm
Thanks, Chris. I'll have to go back and try a gradient.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on August 17, 2013, 01:03:28 pm
Good job, Chris!
Anything to dampen Russ's penchant for excessive cropping.  :D
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Chris Calohan on August 17, 2013, 01:20:21 pm
Thanks, Chris. I'll have to go back and try a gradient.

I didn't get here via a gradient but rather through a mask, one of the ones I'm using to relearn PP. They're neat but sometimes getting from where you want to be from where you are is a bit like scratching your back to satisfy an itch on your foot.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: RSL on August 17, 2013, 01:24:01 pm
Well, here's a shot with a gradient -- big time. I couldn't bring up that far away range either.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Chris Calohan on August 17, 2013, 04:07:10 pm
I like it this way. No crop.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Harald L on August 17, 2013, 08:13:10 pm
Sorry, I can't agree. The beams ruin the atmosphere. For me the first one works much better. Maybe with a slight cr** applied ;D
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: RSL on August 17, 2013, 09:31:14 pm
On reflection I'm inclined to agree. I guess a crop is inevitable.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on August 17, 2013, 11:25:12 pm
On reflection I'm inclined to agree. I guess a crop is inevitable.
How have the mighty fallen!

But I must agree. The beams end up being a distraction.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 18, 2013, 03:36:47 am
On reflection I'm inclined to agree. I guess a crop is inevitable.

Grasp the nettle, Russ!

With the beams, the shot is interesting, but it's not what you were originally trying to obtain: the character and focus has changed.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: RSL on August 18, 2013, 10:47:10 am
.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 18, 2013, 01:22:24 pm
Much improved. Perhaps a little over-sharpened, but that's probably something to do with the downsampling. Or the jpeg conversion. Or something.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on August 18, 2013, 02:42:33 pm
Much improved. Perhaps a little over-sharpened, but that's probably something to do with the downsampling. Or the jpeg conversion. Or something.

Jeremy
+1.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: RSL on August 18, 2013, 04:36:00 pm
Thanks, Jeremy. Yes, I made a print on my 3880 and forgot to go back to the original for a less sharpened version to put on the web. I do that too often.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: David Eckels on August 21, 2013, 06:10:31 pm
Much improved. Perhaps a little over-sharpened, but that's probably something to do with the downsampling. Or the jpeg conversion. Or something.

Jeremy
I agree with Jeremy. A very fine image and with the crop, the sky doesn't compete with the soft grays in the distance. I think this last version emphasizes them better.
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 22, 2013, 03:42:35 am
Thanks, Jeremy. Yes, I made a print on my 3880 and forgot to go back to the original for a less sharpened version to put on the web. I do that too often.

If only you used Lightroom for printing...

Jeremy
Title: Re: Powder Magazine and Mountains
Post by: William Walker on August 22, 2013, 05:28:18 am
.

There...! Now that didn't hurt, did it?!  ;D

I was going through some of the "Camera to Print and Screen" videos the other night and thought of you Russ.

Jeff Schewe said something about the "arrogance" (I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he used "arrogance") of believing you should get everything right in the original shot, and not have to crop.

Perhaps it is asking too much to get it perfect in the original shot?

William