Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: KMRennie on January 11, 2015, 12:42:40 pm
-
Taken 1st and 2nd May last year with Fuji XE-1 and Fuji XF14mm. All comments welcome.
Ken
-
#4 for me.
Jeremy
-
Hard to pick just one here... but #4 as well. It's got the classic landscape look of epic proportions that is extremely difficult to capture.
-
Indeed #4 is really good.
-
Yes, no question, #4 for me too! The reflexion, framing, colors, sky and light are great.
-
Not hard to follow previous comments about #4, firing on all cylinders that one is, additionally I appreciate how the ripple in the water appears to come off the top of the reflection of the mountain...magical.
That said: #3 is a far from ordinary image as well with the serene, clear and beautiful foreground.
Regards, Sander
-
Thanks for the comments. Another 2 shots taken on 1st and 2nd May. Earlier on the first the weather was terrible for photography with low cloud and a spit of rain but it had completely changed the next morning. Unfortunately by midday it had started to cloud up and more importantly the visability started to decrease, this is Scotland after all. Both shots are multi shot panoramas taken with Fuji Xe-1 and Fuji XF 14mm lens. The bright shot developed in Capture One, I would use it more often but I can't get my head around catalogues and sessions. A book would help, the video tutorials don't help with file management, or at least they don't help me.
Ken
-
#4 is excellent as the "optimal view of mountain", #5 is a very good "approach" shot and has a great sky. They are all very nice compositions.
-
#4 for its composition, but I also like #5. All are wonderful photos.
-
4 and 6 for me.
The first is a bit overprocessed to my taste.
Thierry
-
Your photographs make me long to go back... #4 is fab!
-
Thanks everyone for the helpful comments. I have just done a quick mono conversion on my favourite using silver fx which I don't usually use. I think I prefer the mono version but I am not the best judge of my own work, although I should be.
Comments? Ken
-
I really like the monochrome. I think both color and monochrome are valid, but have different moods here.
BTW, "4 shots of (gaelic name)" makes me think of whiskey ;D
-
Completely agree with NancyP: the monochrome is very pretty. I think it brings out the dynamics of the photo much more than the color version (but I like both).
-
The mono is great in its own right, Silver Efex can be fun can't it ?
Regards, Sander
-
All very likeable and difficult to state which is the better.
-
I normally like monochrome but there's something about this one that makes me uneasy. The tranquillity of the colour version seems to have been lost.
Jeremy
-
I think No.4 is a stunning image and the mono version works well too.
Obviously, for anyone who, like me, is totally familiar with the location, the gross distortion of perspective may be offensive if we become too precious about such things. But, given that the huge proportion of viewers are not in a position to notice that, you can safely ignore it. What you have created - if not a faithful representation of the scene - is a stunningly beautiful picture. In one of Scotland's most over-exposed locations, that is no mean feat. Well done.
-
I was going to react badly to the "gross distortion" comment but, wisely, decided to go back to the original shots and overlayed them onto the photoshop stitch and can see what you mean. So I will need to see if I can remember how to use Hugin and produce a "flat" image. However it may look worse, if more accurate. The mono conversion was done on the reduced size jpeg and is probably riddled with halos, I did spend about a minute removing the obvious ones on the skyline but evry high contrast edge probably has them. Off to investigate Hugin.
PS tried adaptive wide angle correction in photoshop and it looks just wrong.
This image produced using Hugin cylindrical projection. It seems to have "corrected" the sloping far LHS of the image but it still does not match the original 2 shots. I will need to try other projections or I could merge the 2 images by hand. Added the Hugin rectilinear projection. I have forgotten most of the 3D geometry I ever learned but will have a read to see if I can make any sense of the "correct" way of doing it. The OS map and some simple Maths Any thoughts on projections or anything else?
Ken
-
Just had a look at the OS map. The hill in the centre, Stob Dearg or Buachaille Etive Mor is both taller 1022m and closer to the viewpoint than the hill on the left Stb a' Ghlais Choire 996m. So in the final image it should look taller which it does in Photoshops stitch and in Hugins cylindrical. Compared to the individual images Stob Dearg looks higher and thinner in the final stitch.
However with the rectilinear projection although Stob Dearg looks a more accurate shape it also looks smaller than the hill on the left which it shouldn't be.
If anyone has an understandeable reason for this I would like to hear it, however go easy on me as my days of fully understanding maths are more than 30 years in the past and were probably not that good even then.
I may just take the cylindrical and stretch it a bit and see if that looks more accurate, if not better.
Ken
-
Ken,
What I said (hopefully sufficiently emphatically) was that you had produced a stunning image.
The question of distortion is only of concern if you are trying to produce an accurate representation of what the eye can see from the camera position.
I am sure we can all remember the grotesquely distorted landscapes that were "in vogue" a few years ago when foregrounds were thrown out of any reasonable perspective by the use of ultra-wide lenses. Any lens of much less than 50mm (or the relevant crop sensor equivalent) will produce a distortion of perspective. Obviously any panoramic stitching will produce an image that exceeds (sometimes by a considerable margin) the field of view of the human eye.
But when photography is considered as an art rather than a science, those things become perfectly legitimate in the pursuit of an interesting image. You have succeeded.
-
I have been there many times and me didn't strike it as distorted (even if it were, you have your creative freedom ;D). Main point though is what is believeable and likeable.
If you were working for the Ordnance Survey...
Thinking about that, rectalineair would be distorting anytime, but it only became an issue with the stitching possibilities we have now (leaving fish eye apart).
-
Thanks EVERYONE for the comments, they have all helped. As the weather here in Cumbria is foul, high winds, wet snow and almost no light, I have spent an enjoyable couple of hours relearning stitching, the original now looks to me as though I had used a "Punch" filter. I have also produced a mono image from scratch on the full sized image not the small jpeg I used previously. I use a modified version of contrast grading as I can control it better and will compare it with Silver Efex tomorrow as I often find that revisiting an image later lets me see it with fresh eyes especially with high contrast images like this one. Hope you like it, I do.
Ken