Marsh at Dawn, Haliburton, Ontario

[luxborealis]

One from last week in one of my favourite autumn places.

C&C welcome, especially improvements within the realm of what is commonly known as 'straight' photography.

RX10iii 200mm (equiv) f/4 @ 1/30 ISO64
Processed in Lr 6.14 and LrM

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Fine shot as-is, Terry.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

That is a real beauty, Terry.
I will second Slobodan's suggestions for improvement.   

[armand]

I'm a little confused by the ISO 64, any particular reason for it as opposed to the base ISO?

[Martin Kristiansen]

Super image

[Jeremy Roussak]

It's a fine image, Terry, but at the risk of incurring the Wrath of Russ, I'd suggest cropping a little off the bottom, removing the bushes. They don't seem to me to add anything.

Jeremy

[Paulo Bizarro]

As is is fine.

[thierrylegros396]

It's a fine image, Terry, but at the risk of incurring the Wrath of Russ, I'd suggest cropping a little off the bottom, removing the bushes. They don't seem to me to add anything.

Jeremy

+1

Either less bushes, or more bushes with more water to my taste.

Thierry

[luxborealis]

Thanks for the feedback and compliments. I was wondering about the bottom as well; it was niggling my brain as well. It’s a 16:9 crop - as I had envisioned it when shooting. More foreground detracts from the scene by making it messy, drawing the eye away from the main event. More sky unbalances the photograph. I think I’ll shave just a bit off the bottom. Thanks Jeremy and Thierry.

Armand: With many cameras, base ISO produces optimal (the greatest) dynamic range, but with the Sony RX10iii, ISO 64 provides just a tad more, so for me, ISO 64 is preferred whenever possible (see DR at this DXO Page).

[armand]

Thanks, I didn’t know this. I always thought of the extended low ISO as a way to get lower shutter speeds but with the cost of decreasing the dynamic range. I guess I’ll use it much more on my RX10 iv for landscape, I would take any extra dynamic range that I can get.

[RSL]

Fine shot as-is, Terry.

+1

[stamper]

It's a fine image, Terry, but at the risk of incurring the Wrath of Russ, I'd suggest cropping a little off the bottom, removing the bushes. They don't seem to me to add anything.

Jeremy

Agreed. It would make a fine image into a very fine image.

[rabanito]

Beautiful

[Peter McLennan]

A lovely image, but it seems to me the alternating blocks of shadow and midtone/highlight along the bottom of frame could use a little of what Charlie called "Border Patrol".  They are ever-so-slightly distracting from the main act, which is for me, at least, the lovely foggy mid zone. 

I'd try filling those highlight areas with shadow material and keep the overall band of darkness the same width.

Cloning Heresy, I know.  But there it is.

[RMW]

A fine photo this is, no matter how it's cropped or not cropped.
But I'm most pleased with how Terry has a favorite locale close to home where the opportunities to make photos are rich and likely boundless.
Thank you Terry.
Richard

[John R]

Since you are looking for feedback, here is my take. The image is evocative and natural. Wonderful composition with layered look, beginning with subtle yellow hues in the sky. I like how the vertical dead trees in the mist are distributed, which is good because they are dark and command attention. Their presence echoes the verticals of the tree line above. But in their own niche where together with the bog, they give rise to the mist. My one negative criticism is that the bottom water reflecting areas are very powerful and draw too much attention away from and at the expense of the overall scene. And although they are low key bright, they are are rectangular in shape and command too much attention, and lead the eye out of the image. So for that reason I would crop out the white reflecting areas.

JR

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I like John R's suggestion, which keeps some of the dark area at the bottom as a good border to the central activity in the fog above, while removing those unnecessary whitish rectangles.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hi Terry,

I am considering trading my Canon full frame for a Sony RX10IV. What are your thoughts on the pros and cons of the camera, especially as the one-and-only?

I tried briefly one in a store and was floored by a portrait shot at eq. 600mm indoor, hand-held, at a relatively high ISO (perhaps 1000), with eyelashes in perfect focus and tack sharp. Unfortunately, I could examine it only on the back screen.

I know you've been shooting with the big guns too (Nikon 800?), so how do you feel now about processing different files?

A bit of a background for my question: I used to do some architectural photography for a client, and also sell fine art prints in art fairs, and needed it big, up to 36" x 48", so I bought a Canon 5Ds. I won't be doing either in the future, so my needs would be mostly for social media, online use, and medium size prints (say up to 20x30).

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[luxborealis]

Hi Slobodan,

For Sm, online and prints up to 16x20, I think the RX-10iii (and, my guess the iv, too) is ideal. I can confidently shoot most subjects and can carry the camera all day with no fatigue. The all-in-one 24-600mm f/2.8-4 Zeiss lens is really the ideal, in fact, perfect, walkabout lens. The stabilization makes the everything up to 600mm possible, even with ridiculously low shutter speeds at 600 (1/50th!)

Places you will notice a difference . . . Shooting:
  -  action: fewer keepers compared to a DSLR; that being said, still enough keepers to be productive
  -  birds on the wing: I find it almost impossible to track and shoot successfully compared to DSLR
  -  some edge distortion and softness, but no worse than many DSLR lenses
  -  close-up and macro: extra care must be taken to zoom and focus; not as intuitive as with a DSLR

In processing . . . note: I mostly shoot raw, especially for my personal work - and the files are excellent (even the jpegs are excellent and can withstand some processing)
  -  sharpness (or ability to be sharpened) is excellent, especially at ISO64 to 125; at 200 photos start to look a little grainy and by 400 they are grainy, but still, definitely printable and perfectly fine for the web/projection
  -  shadows do not recover as well as I would like them to; increasing “Shadow” adjustment on Lightroom tends to brighten mid-tones too much without doing as much to shadows as I am used to with Nikon NEFs
  -  you will not have as much highlight room as you’ve been used to
  -  smoothness: you may miss the smoothness of tones that FF produces; although I must admit, on web/projection the difference is virtually unnoticeable; on prints, it would take a side-by-side for a medium-sized print at normal viewing distance to really see a difference; larger prints, well you know what happens; 20x30 - I’ve not printed that large with the Sony, but with a good file and proper up sampling, I’m sure it would look great.

The Sony is the ideal travel camera as it’s the camera that can always be with me (Though the same can be said about my iPhone!). I still use my FF for fine (serious, aka 4x5-style) landscapes (when I’m not travelling overseas) and an APS DSLR for wildlife, birds and sports, again when I’m not travelling overseas. My travel photography is for a market that doesn’t usually require large prints, so the Sony is ideal. It’s also my go-to camera when I’m out hiking for a few hours, but even then, I’ll often use an iPhone and I know yoiu’ve had similar success with that, too.

I hope this helps,

Terry

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Thanks, Terry, appreciated.