Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Alskoj on October 15, 2017, 12:34:12 pm

Title: Log
Post by: Alskoj on October 15, 2017, 12:34:12 pm: Different shots of a log from this morning. Some normal, some long exposure.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4505/37713483151_2ba65c940c_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZsBsC8)Pond-10-15-17-1-3 (https://flic.kr/p/ZsBsC8) by Joseph Alsko (https://www.flickr.com/photos/20yearsusaf/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4463/37456462280_530b4b8744_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Z4UagN)Pond-10-15-17-1-4 (https://flic.kr/p/Z4UagN) by Joseph Alsko (https://www.flickr.com/photos/20yearsusaf/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4479/37665589486_3460a7020d_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZonZvh)Pond-10-15-17-1-7 (https://flic.kr/p/ZonZvh) by Joseph Alsko (https://www.flickr.com/photos/20yearsusaf/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Log
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 15, 2017, 01:47:48 pm: I'm not mad on the first, but the other two are fine shots. I'd like to see some more space at the top, if possible (though the shadow on the upper right of #3 suggests it might not have been).

Jeremy
Title: Re: Log
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on October 15, 2017, 03:31:00 pm: They are fascinating. My fave is the third.
Title: Re: Log
Post by: Otto Phocus on October 16, 2017, 06:02:10 am: The long exposure shots are clever. I like the way the log is sharp but the reflection is just blured enough.
Title: Re: Log
Post by: BobDavid on October 16, 2017, 12:24:34 pm: I think # 2 and # 3 are stronger than the first one. There's a lot of potential for a series.
Title: Re: Log
Post by: Alskoj on October 16, 2017, 07:24:55 pm: Thanks all!
(I threw the first one in as a standard exposure baseline.)
Title: Re: Log
Post by: Harald L on October 17, 2017, 03:01:06 am: Like the second and third ones. But perhaps you may reduce some filters you've applied because they look a tad overcooked to me.
Title: Re: Log
Post by: Alskoj on October 17, 2017, 06:21:50 am: Quote from: Harald L on October 17, 2017, 03:01:06 am
Like the second and third ones. But perhaps you may reduce some filters you've applied because they look a tad overcooked to me.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Title: Re: Log
Post by: Harald L on October 17, 2017, 01:39:41 pm: Quote from: Alskoj on October 17, 2017, 06:21:50 am
I'm not sure what you mean.

The log in #2 and #3 looks at me as if it was treated seperately from the background by a mask which doesn't fit properly. But maybe it's just a jpeg artifact caused by compression. Or my old eyes which can't cope with hard contrasts anymore. :-\
Title: Re: Log
Post by: Alskoj on October 17, 2017, 05:07:36 pm: Quote from: Harald L on October 17, 2017, 01:39:41 pm
The log in #2 and #3 looks at me as if it was treated seperately from the background by a mask which doesn't fit properly. But maybe it's just a jpeg artifact caused by compression. Or my old eyes which can't cope with hard contrasts anymore. :-\
No worries, they're just long exposures. No masking. All my stuff is straight photography. I don't know how to do all the fancy digital stuff.
Title: Re: Log
Post by: Otto Phocus on October 18, 2017, 06:21:23 am: What was the shutter setting for the second shot?
Title: Re: Log
Post by: Alskoj on October 18, 2017, 08:35:10 am: Quote from: Otto Phocus on October 18, 2017, 06:21:23 am
What was the shutter setting for the second shot?
60 seconds for #2 and #3. 10 stop B+W ND filter. ISO 50, f16.
Title: Re: Log
Post by: MattBurt on October 18, 2017, 11:40:29 am: The long ones work pretty well.