Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Payne on May 26, 2009, 02:28:45 pm
-
This weekend, I was working on vertical panorama.
This one is 45MP and was shot with a D700 and the 70-200VR at 105.
(http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v645/158/16/1336279231/n1336279231_30440097_6164780.jpg)
This was shot with the same setup and is 25MP.
(http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v645/158/16/1336279231/n1336279231_30440098_1088932.jpg)
Here's one at 70mm.
(http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v645/158/16/1336279231/n1336279231_30440099_6623897.jpg)
... and here's a pretty flower along the way ... shot with the 50mm 1.4 and a Canon 250D diopter.
(http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v645/158/16/1336279231/n1336279231_30440103_6124308.jpg)
Lastly, a shot trying to capture the wind ... still not happy with the color here ...
(http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v645/158/16/1336279231/n1336279231_30440100_886842.jpg)
Comments and criticism welcome.
-
I like the composition of the first and third shots. The waterfall seems to "resolve" by showing the pool at the base. Despite my preference for B&W, I find the color shot to be more effective in this instance. Nicely done.
-
I agree with Jason above on the composition and in my preference for #3 over #1. It may be that #3 is duo-chromatic (if that is even a word) - Black and White and subtle "green" that makes this work for me over the pure B&W. If the greens in #3 were as green as they appear in #2 then #3 may not have been as pleasing.
On another note, it looks like the whites in the waterfall shots are blown out in spots, particularly shot #3 especially at the base (and maybe not at all in #2).
Andrew
-
I agree with both Jason and Andrew. Yes, the highlights in #3 do look a bit blown out. You almost always want at least one or two points to rise to specular white, but this may be a bit much. On the other hand, it's almost impossible to be sure about details like that on a computer monitor
-
I agree with both Jason and Andrew. Yes, the highlights in #3 do look a bit blown out. You almost always want at least one or two points to rise to specular white, but this may be a bit much. On the other hand, it's almost impossible to be sure about details like that on a computer monitor
Thanks, all ... I think I agree ... #3 is my favorite as far as color and composition goes, but the water is definitely a bit blown - especially in the pool at the bottom. #1 might work as nicely as #3 in color, but it doesn't have the headroom over the top of the falls that #3 does.
I just got a new three stop ND filter this week and I'll be going back this weekend for yet another round of practice.
Stay tuned ...
-
The running water looks unrealistic. Call it a preference, but I am not a fan of the overly white and solid masses of looking water, preferring something in between. I know this cannot be helped in some cases. Your compositions are fine, although you will notice, in this kind of light, with the dark wet areas of rock, the lovely greenery does not stand out. I prefer the compsoition of no-3 and the water look of no-2. The columbine shot does not quite make it for me. I have many like it where the DOF is either too shallow or too great- in this case not enough DOF. The wind in the trees shot is my favourite. It may or may not be exactly what you are looking for, but it is reasonably good to me. Look at in large format and it will grow on you. As to the colour, I have the same problem and I have done hundreds of experiments in motion studies. Green as a background (grass and trees) just does not do very well in motion shots, particulary where it overlaps onto other subjects or elements. It tends to look washed out. I have to revert to manual to ensure the meter does not change at the last second. I just bought a 3 stop ND filter to try some motion shots.
JMR
-
Good work. I think that the composition of #2 looks just right- you have a nice "S" curve formed by the waterfall and the adjacent rocks, bracketed at the upper right and bottom left by additional rocks. As of now, the eye starts on the waterfall, but stops there. Try some dodge/burn to bring the eye down from the waterfall to complete the "S".
John
-
Try some dodge/burn to bring the eye down from the waterfall to complete the "S".
I see what you mean. I will try that when I get back to the "files" ... I'm up where the waterfall is and not where my files live ... so I'll be shooting it yet again tomorrow ... hoping for some early morning fog ...
Thanks!
-
I see what you mean. I will try that when I get back to the "files" ... I'm up where the waterfall is and not where my files live ... so I'll be shooting it yet again tomorrow ... hoping for some early morning fog ...
Thanks!
Here's a quick hatchet job on a tiny jpeg ... but I like the idea. I'll probably go back and work on the underlying images as this is a mosaic.
[attachment=14127:quick_fix.jpg]
-
I like the third composition the best. The second one just doesn't create as much of a visual path for my eyes to follow through the frame, also the falls seem a bit cramped in the frame in the first two compared to the third.