Posts for: R.G.
Mar 15, 2024 02:22:05 #
#4
Mar 13, 2024 16:14:05 #
Mar 13, 2024 13:33:33 #
Good examples of B&W vividness without excessive harshness. Good choice of subjects also.
Mar 13, 2024 13:28:29 #
Hi Terry. I think you've achieved your objective of getting good colour separation and the result is better than you could have achieved using just contrast, saturation and the HSL tool.
I also think that you might have ended up suffering from editor fatigue. The final result is brighter and less contrasty than it could have been, and there is possibly an overemphasis on the yellow-green content of the vegetation. But to my eye it looks like there's nothing that minor tweaks can't fix.
I also think that you might have ended up suffering from editor fatigue. The final result is brighter and less contrasty than it could have been, and there is possibly an overemphasis on the yellow-green content of the vegetation. But to my eye it looks like there's nothing that minor tweaks can't fix.
Mar 12, 2024 12:43:29 #
Markag wrote:
Roseburg, Oregon. Ridgecrest -- yes Ridgecrest -- Drive.
I suppose even in winter 10 miles is a lot of atmosphere. There's no substitute for proximity.
Mar 12, 2024 12:32:02 #
Markag wrote:
... The soft mountain in the background is always my concern... These mountains are usually soft and blue tinted when photographed no matter the setting. Editing tips from the pros would be very appreciated.
Haze robs what's behind it of detail, contrast and colour. The best you can hope for is to reduce the impact of haze. The usual tools are the contrast and clarity sliders, lowering the Highlights and using the HSL tool to slightly darken and desaturate blue. Some of these don't make good global adjustments so the best option is to make a selection of the mountains and apply adjustments locally.
It's easy to go from one extreme to another so you should aim for moderate effects only... or wait for clear, frosty days (is this where you tell me that you live in south Florida?
).Mar 12, 2024 12:23:27 #
Another thought: - hyperfocal distance focusing is the ultimate expression of DOF. The sort of situation where hyperfocal distance focusing is needed is typically where you have something of significance in the close foreground that you want to be sharp and you also want sharpness all the way to the horizon. The foreground objects would typically be subjects of interest (not necessarily the main subject) and would often be within a few feet of the camera. In that situation it would be hard to avoid a sense of depth.
Mar 11, 2024 16:53:03 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Lots of good advice, thanks for your time...
You're welcome. Another suggestion:- You could play on the "depth" aspect of DOF. It wouldn't have to involve huge distances but if it conveyed a good sense of depth it might tell the desired story better.
Mar 11, 2024 16:31:56 #
PipeTobacco wrote:
Actually, it was my daughter who suggested the P&S as a gift because she wanted a backup camera for this once-in-a-lifetime adventure.
I was presuming her phone would be sufficient for her as she is comfortable with it, but she suggested it would be helpful for her.
I was presuming her phone would be sufficient for her as she is comfortable with it, but she suggested it would be helpful for her.
If you haven't considered second hand it might be worth considering. It sounds like she might want something bigger than internet-sized images in which case a P&S is a better proposition than a phone. Plus a good P&S will be more failure-proof because of the larger sensor.
Mar 11, 2024 16:02:35 #
Your posted example shows that you probably want to avoid too much distance since that's what caused the problem. Your linked photo would be good if it included a longer view, but it wouldn't have to be any longer than the field of vines (?). Anything with lots of distinct detail but not too much distance would probably be ideal.
Mar 11, 2024 15:57:29 #
Does it have to be new? If not, a second hand older Sony RX100 (Mk iii or thereabouts) would be a good choice.
Mar 11, 2024 15:52:46 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
... Are you thinking mountain can be sharper at that distance...
The mountain might be pin-sharp focuswise but it's impossible to say. I'm thinking that if you want to show front-to-back sharpness, a soft background mountain isn't a good choice of background.
Mar 11, 2024 15:21:05 #
Mar 11, 2024 15:17:10 #
Not sure what the intention is. Is it to maximise DOF or to show the limitations? The background mountain is soft, which would make it inappropriate if the intention was to maximise DOF. OTOH if you want to demonstrate a carefully selected DOF, a soft background would do that.
Mar 11, 2024 12:40:25 #
John N wrote:
Yor starter for ten.
Hopefully there will be more with that camera. Thanks for commenting.