Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park  (Read 2661 times)

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« on: August 01, 2014, 09:00:49 PM »

Here are a few more to add to the four I posted previously...
All shot with a D800E on tripod; post-capture processing exclusively in Lightroom.

Still Water: 8:46pm; 30mm; [email protected]; +1EV; ISO 100 w/ B+W ND3.0
Storm's End: 5:54am; 18mm; [email protected]; 2⅓EV; ISO 100 w/ B+W ND3.0
The Trail: 18mm; 9:03pm; [email protected]/13; 1⅔EV; ISO 200
Horse Lake, Dawn: 6:02am; 35mm; [email protected]/10; 2EV; ISO 50

C&C&Qs welcome.

FWIW, I am greatly enjoying the AF-S Nikkor 18-35mm 3.5-4.5 and am impressed with the image quality from such a lightweight lens (which is sure appreciated when backpacking!)
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 03:49:44 PM by luxborealis »
Logged
Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature - visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11170
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2014, 09:33:43 PM »

They're all quite fine, as I would expect from you, Terry. But the first one just leaves me speechless. It is stunning in it's simple elegance.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1967
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2014, 10:35:20 PM »

For me, it's "The Trail".  Love to hear about the BW conversion process on this one.
Logged

Rajan Parrikar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Rajan Parrikar
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2014, 03:03:23 AM »

The final "Horse Lake" for me, for the mood it evokes.

churly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2014, 07:34:26 AM »

1 & 4 for me - especially 4.  The BW conversions in 2 & 3 seem contrived to me.  IMO you pushed them too far.
Chuck
Logged
Chuck Hurich

David Anderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
    • http://www.twigwater.com
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2014, 07:44:06 AM »

All good, but I really like #1 - awesome. 8)

Are you throwing any sharpness away shooting  at f16 ?
The 28 1.8 is off it's game at 16 - just wondering how the zoom compares ?
Logged
www.twigwater.com My fly fishing blog.

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2014, 08:45:40 AM »

Thanks, all, for having a look and for your kind words.

Peter - The B&W conversion is fairly straightforward, but it really pushes LR to the limit and can, as Chuck pointed out, look a bit contrived. In LR, I convert to B&W and typically apply a slight warm/brown tone using a Split Toning of Highlight Hue 0, Sat 0; Balance of -50; Shadow Hue of 48, Sat 12. I will often check the "Auto" version, just to get a sense of what the LR algorithms "think" - often they are quite good. From there, I'll either go back to 0s or adjust the Exposure to levels which bring out detail, but also knowing what's coming next...

With B&Ws only, I often work backwards to the recommended "top down" method of adjustments. You have to remember, what I'm working towards is re-creating the "vision" or "visualization" of the scene I saw when I made the photo. While I am much more of a literal photographer than an imaginative one (I try to be true to the structure of the scene), I am also trying to convey more than just the scene the light and the feeling that goes with it being there at that time.

So, for B&Ws,  I apply a Clarity adjustment of between 50 and 100, then I bring the Blacks up so there is just some clipping, then adjust the Shadows upwards to bring out detail as needed. I'll often give a similar treatment to the Highlights by raising the Whites as high as possible with perhaps just a small amount of clipping (if there were true whites in the scene), then adjust the Highlights downwards, typically to maximize the tonal separation in them. I then walk away from it and revisit the photo a few days later. Sometimes I'll make a print (using Moab Entrada Rag Natural, which needs a bit more contrast to sing) to check tones. Prints are my ultimate goal here. I've attached a Develop module Basic panel for "The Trail" (the original, not the one here).

Chuck - You're right, I did push the two B&Ws a bit far. As I said above, prints on Moab Entrada Rag Natural are my ultimate goal, so a boost in Contrast is needed. Both were high contrast situations with a real "edge" to them. My goal was to maintain that edginess. I also wanted to ensure the rock was more than just "there"; I wanted it to "speak", so I needed it to look more alive than dead. Bumping Clarity has a way of doing just that. I've gone back and tried the same shots with reduced Contrast, Shadows, Blacks and Clarity and while they look more realistic, to me the rock is not alive enough, it's too muddy (see attached). Perhaps there's a balance there I'm missing.

David - 11 is the sweet spot with this lens (in fact, all of the Nikkors I own) and I try to make best use of it. Typically, however, I like to get in close and am pushing DoF to the limit so use 16. To me, there are times when the gain in DoF outweighs the loss of overall acuity, especially when much of that loss (or all, perhaps) can be gained back in sharpening.

 
Logged
Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature - visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!

brandtb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
    • http://www.brandtbolding.com
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2014, 09:26:26 AM »

The first is quite a beautiful shot...and the tones...all the way round.
Logged
Brandt Bolding
www.brandtbolding.com

sdwilsonsct

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2365
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2014, 10:51:36 AM »

They're all quite fine, as I would expect from you, Terry. But the first one just leaves me speechless. It is stunning in it's simple elegance.


+1. + thanks for the B&W tutorial.

Ed B

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
    • Light Conspiracy
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2014, 11:32:56 AM »



David - 11 is the sweet spot with this lens (in fact, all of the Nikkors I own) and I try to make best use of it. Typically, however, I like to get in close and am pushing DoF to the limit so use 16. To me, there are times when the gain in DoF outweighs the loss of overall acuity, especially when much of that loss (or all, perhaps) can be gained back in sharpening.

 

Have you tried focus stacking? I've just started playing around with it and Photoshop makes it quite easy.
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1967
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2014, 12:14:04 PM »

Thanks, Terry, for your detailed description of BW conversion in Lightroom.  You skills as a photographer and educator are as usual very evident.
Logged

Dave Pluimer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 166
    • Dave Pluimer Photography
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2014, 02:34:51 PM »

I like #1 and #2.

In #2, I think you should consider working in a shot of the water (esp. in the bottom of the frame) of a shot in the 0.3-1.2s range. It's a little too clear for me. But, that long exposure did a splendid job on that sky.

Re: Isaac - they are referring to diffraction limited aperture (DLA). It refers to the smallest aperture before the sensor/lens combo starts going soft due to light bending (I'm paraphrasing). On most cameras you're looking at f/8. I try not to shoot past f/10. Link - http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2014, 03:53:18 PM »


In #2, I think you should consider working in a shot of the water (esp. in the bottom of the frame) of a shot in the 0.3-1.2s range. It's a little too clear for me. But, that long exposure did a splendid job on that sky.


Dave: Here is a similar frame made a bit earlier in the morning at 1.3sec. There is a bit more movement in the close-up water, but you're right about the added movement in the sky of the long exposure.
Logged
Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature - visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2014, 09:50:40 PM »

Thanks for pointing that out, Isaac. While I don't doubt the findings of photozone.de, in practical use, the 18-35 easily outperforms my Nikkor 20mm 2.8 and is a hair better than my Nikkor 24mm 2.8D. I could never afford the Nikkor 24mm 1.4G nor the Zeiss Distagon 21mm or 18mm (and hope to stay married!). However, if my clients start to complain about lack of sharpness, then I will re-consider ;) To me, the proof of the lens is in the prints

FWIW, over on DxOMark, the 18-35mm G earns a "29"; the Zeiss Distagon a "27" (along with the Nikkor 20mm D); the Nikkor 16-35 4 a "25"; the Zeiss Distagon 18mm 3.5 a "24" and the Nikkor 17-35mm 2.8 a "23" - all more expensive lenses with much better press - so I think I'm doing alright by this one.
Logged
Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature - visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!

ckelly49

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2014, 11:22:56 AM »

#1 is beautiful and very soothing, but best is show goes to Horse Lake for me.
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3323
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2014, 05:54:19 AM »

What a fine set. For me #3 is exquisite, it makes me want to climb those steps.

maddogmurph

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
    • Maddog's Photography
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2014, 03:36:13 PM »

#1 - Like the smoothness, colors, and clarity of the subject.  Seems like I'd like more going on however.
#2 - Love the walkway, the trees at the top of the frame somehow take away from it for me.
#3 - Feels perfect beneath the sky, but I'd like the clouds up top to be still, and have a greater complexity or depth - I love the shot btw.
#4 - I would have thrown a heavier grad and wide lens on if I could, I wonder what's to the right.

You're selling the 800/810 to me quite well I should add.
Logged
Maddog - Apologetically critical

Calumet // Tachihara // Schneider 90mm, 210mm // 10" // FUJIFILM X-T1 // 10-24mm, 18-55mm, F55-200mm, 35mm, 60mm // Driod POS // Pentax WG3 // Sony RX100 // Nikon D810 // 24mm F1.4, 50mm F1.4, 70-200mm F4

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1147
  • Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.
    • Fine Art Photography on the Misty Isle of Skye
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2014, 06:43:01 PM »

Love the first shot, just the kind of thing I find myself doing these days and once again proves the old adage, that less is more, excellent!

At first I thought the clouds entering/leaving the shot to the right might be better if they weren't there, but then the more I look at the shot, the more I think the clouds add to it.

Dave
Logged
Fine Art Photography on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: More from Bruce Peninsula National Park
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2014, 10:21:17 PM »

Many thanks to all for your compliments and constructive criticisms/critiques - all are valuable in their own way.
Logged
Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature - visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up