Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Geltsdale  (Read 4902 times)

KMRennie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Geltsdale
« on: August 19, 2015, 01:21:34 pm »

Taken just before the rain started. I quick trip out 3 miles from home to experiment with shutter speed and flowing water. This is our local water supply. Nikon D810 1s f16 Nikkor 20mm. I am slowly weaning myself off of Clarity as it seems to be not needed as much, well at least to my eyes.

Ken
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15295
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2015, 01:40:58 pm »

...Nikon D810 1s f16 Nikkor 20mm...

I've been always puzzled why photographers use f/16 on super-wide angles, thus killing half of that gorgeous detail D810 has to offer?

KMRennie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2015, 01:48:58 pm »

To get the exposure time I wanted, no ND filter available. I also have the same shot taken at f6.3 with 3 exposures for subsequent focus stacking. I will post the result when I get round to processing them. Ken
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5834
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2015, 03:46:24 am »

Very nice image. The water running away from you kind of sucks you into the image.

sdwilsonsct

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3150
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2015, 06:57:53 am »

Yes, great leading lines here. Colours, too.

KMRennie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2015, 07:21:44 am »

Here is the f6.3 shot. I only needed 2 of the shots to get everything in focus. I can tell the difference on a laptop but I am looking for it. The biggest difference is in the trees under the bridge which are now in focus instead of close using f16 and hyperfocal focusing. The f6.3 shots give va shutter speed of 1/5s but I prefer 1s so I have masked the 1s water back in. The difference on a 7000px image is visible and it should make a difference in a print so thanks Slobodan for making me think about using f16.
All comments about visible difference welcome.

Ken
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5834
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2015, 07:38:13 am »

IMO this type of image could work with a shallow - not too shallow - depth of field. The foreground obviously sharp and the bridge not so sharp?

KMRennie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2015, 08:20:58 am »

Stamper
I think I agree with you about depth of field, I have enough images to patch this type of image together but it is very overcast at the moment and it looks like rain so I will drive up to this spot, less than 10 minutes, and retake the shot with wet rocks and a polariser and see how this looks. I will then wait until Oct/ Nov when the trees change colour and return.

Ken
Logged

KMRennie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2015, 12:25:33 pm »

Thanks everyone for the comments. Back from retaking the shot. Sun was coming and going and the local insects biting but this is one shot f8 0.5 seconds with polariser. Slightly softer under the bridge with reduced dof. The leaves were blowing a bit and I took a higher ISO faster shot to freeze the leaves and may patch that in but the image is probably not worth all of the work but I have found it a good learning opportunity. I will return when the leaves change colour.
Ken
Logged

MattBurt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2549
  • Looking for that other shot
    • Matt Burt Photography
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2015, 01:44:33 pm »

It's a nice calming image. I like these kinds of shots. Good leading lines too.
As for the f/16 vs the focus stacked one, I can find some differences if looking for them but I don't think there is much difference to my eyes on my work monitor. A big print would probably make it easier to see.
Logged
-MattB

thierrylegros396

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1821
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2015, 02:59:31 pm »

Last image is far more interesting.

Thierry
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5834
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2015, 03:14:57 am »

Last image is far more interesting.

Thierry

Agreed. IMO front to back sharpness is over rated.

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10237
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2015, 04:53:39 am »

Agreed. IMO front to back sharpness is over rated.

I also agree, with the last image I feel like I'm in the water. No problem with sharpness.
Logged
Francois

the_marshall_101

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2015, 04:26:38 pm »

Nice scene.  I use a lot less clarity than I used to now that I do tone curves first.  Personally I would bring blacks and shadows down in your image to give it a bit more contrast.
Logged

DwayneOakes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2015, 06:17:57 am »

Great place. could spend hours and hours in that little area, endless photography.
Great exposure (blur) for the water texture in the last image. For me I would back off the contrast
a tad in the last image but that is just me.
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2778
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: Geltsdale
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2015, 01:50:41 pm »

Last image is far more interesting.

Thierry

+1
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com
Pages: [1]   Go Up