Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: In the park  (Read 1227 times)

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
In the park
« on: December 19, 2013, 02:13:20 pm »

Yesterday's walk in the park

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: In the park
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2013, 05:43:41 pm »

Nice park. Curiously, I think I'd prefer the fourth without the birds.

Jeremy
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: In the park
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2013, 07:19:46 pm »

Nice park. Curiously, I think I'd prefer the fourth without the birds.

Jeremy

It's possible as I cropped out half of the original shot but it's the birds that attracted me in the first place.

Here another version of the second one where I cloned few more spots.

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: In the park
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2013, 08:19:16 pm »

Like the fourth as is, the symmetry, the limited palette.  Without the birds it would be blah for me.
Logged

cjogo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1469
Re: In the park
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2013, 04:33:40 am »

Like the crows in the tree =---

 Wish the mounds had better depth of field ---
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: In the park
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2013, 10:06:39 am »

Like the crows in the tree =---

 Wish the mounds had better depth of field ---

Telephoto lens, f8 to f11 (tried several). While this could have worked with a smaller aperture I probably need to learn to do focus stacking; this way I could have used the tripod I carried with me for nothing (again) as the light was good enough not to use it.

cjogo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1469
Re: In the park
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2013, 12:04:17 pm »

Telephoto lens, f8 to f11 (tried several). While this could have worked with a smaller aperture I probably need to learn to do focus stacking; this way I could have used the tripod I carried with me for nothing (again) as the light was good enough not to use it.

I never learned how to shoot "art" without a tripod -- but that was the film days .....and generally under ASA 100.  Looks like the light was not good enough.  :-)  

When it calls for f22 --it may require that tripod you carry along .......
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 04:15:57 pm by cjogo »
Logged

Harald L

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 856
Re: In the park
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2013, 05:44:41 pm »

Nice park. Curiously, I think I'd prefer the fourth without the birds.

Jeremy

+1

Harald
Logged
Glad to be an amateur

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: In the park
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2013, 07:01:40 pm »

I never learned how to shoot "art" without a tripod -- but that was the film days .....and generally under ASA 100.  Looks like the light was not good enough.  :-)  

When it calls for f22 --it may require that tripod you carry along .......

f8, 260 mm (in 35 equivalent), ISO400, 1/125 in a lens with very good OS so plenty of light.
I've had few more at f11 and ISO800 with significantly improved DOF but the framing is off, I'll try to get some of those but doesn't look that promising.
Anyway what attracted me was the shapes and the color change of the water from the foreground to the background; detail and DOF was an afterthought and it shows.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: In the park
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2013, 09:24:23 pm »

Couple different takes and a new one

PS. content aware fill is a huge saver
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 09:26:26 pm by armand »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up