Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Littondale  (Read 306 times)

RogTallbloke

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Littondale
« on: January 07, 2019, 07:08:18 PM »

A quietly hidden gem in the north of Yorkshire.

Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7350
Re: Littondale
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2019, 03:32:22 AM »

I like the scene, with the parallel walls. I think the image could be rather better processed: it looks washed-out and overexposed at the top.

Jeremy
Logged
(formerly kikashi)

RogTallbloke

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: Littondale
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2019, 03:46:50 AM »

Thanks Jeremy. Yes, the composition was a lot better than the execution the equipment permitted. A lens hood would have helped prevent the flare caused by shooting towards the Sun. SONY don't provide a thread or any other means of attachment on the RX100 lens. I sold it and bought a Nikon 1 camera instead.
Logged

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 898
Re: Littondale
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2019, 08:10:36 AM »

Nice composition.
That looks like veiling glare from mist in the valley as well. 
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3569
Re: Littondale
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2019, 04:12:34 PM »

Duplicating the image and then setting the duplicate to Multiply mode & its opacity to 50–60% gives the photo a lot more "body."

-Dave-
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 12:59:31 AM by Telecaster »
Logged

RogTallbloke

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: Littondale
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2019, 12:48:07 PM »

Duplicating the image and then setting the duplicate to Multiply mode & its opacity to 50–60% gives the photo a lot more "body."

-Dave-

Thanks for the tip. I did that and added a levels mask too and got something closer to my memory of strongly contrasting sun and shadow.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15825
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Littondale
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2019, 01:12:54 PM »

Big improvement. Very nice now.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11612
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Littondale
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2019, 01:18:19 PM »

+1

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7350
Re: Littondale
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2019, 03:14:20 PM »

Yes, very much better. If anything, it's a bit dark at the bottom and light at the top: have you tried a gradient?

Jeremy
Logged
(formerly kikashi)

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2554
  • Formerly owner of theimagingfactory
    • Pictures
Re: Littondale
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2019, 03:52:18 PM »

Duplicating the image and then setting the duplicate to Multiply mode & its opacity to 50–60% gives the photo a lot more "body."

-Dave-

You do realise that this is just a very round about way of doing a plain old gamma correction?

Then again, this looks more professional on youtube...
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3569
Re: Littondale
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2019, 03:45:16 PM »

You do realise that this is just a very round about way of doing a plain old gamma correction?

Then again, this looks more professional on youtube...

Say it isn't so!

 ;D

-Dave-
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2648
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: Littondale
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2019, 11:51:11 AM »

I like the scene, with the parallel walls. I think the image could be rather better processed: it looks washed-out and overexposed at the top.
Jeremy

Sorry, Jeremy, I heartily disagree. The original photograph re-creates a feeling of slightly misty morning light quite lost in the second image. Do not change the original tonal values - they make the photograph!

The only concern I have is the too-tight cropping: I don’t feel like I can visually enter the scene with the bottom of the gate cut off and I have nowhere to go with the lack of breathing room at the top. The loss of the bottom of the gate does not look intentional.

If ‘Rog’ was trying to convey a feeling of tightness and claustrophobia of the repeating fence lines and fields, contrasting with freedom of the glorious light above, then he succeeded, although I would still prefer to have even 5% more along the top to accentuate that gorgeous light.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Littondale
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2019, 04:17:52 PM »

I'm with Terry.  The aerial perspective and depth offered by the light tones in the distance make version 1 far more appealing to me.
In fact, I'd be tempted to lighten it even more.
In fact 02, I wish I could see the horizon.

The RHS foreground rock wall is too dark after this adjustment, too. But then, I'd clone out all the wires, so all bets are off.

A lovely location, deserving of the most stringent attention to tone and colour. 
« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 04:21:48 PM by Peter McLennan »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up