Posts for: dickhrm
Jul 27, 2014 22:44:33 #
I'm torn re the road. Per another poster, I hate too much road in a pic. Yet the road does lead one eyes the barn and hillside, and at least it is a curving road rather than a boring straight line.
llindstrand wrote:
I like the composition just as it is. The storm clouds add to the feel. Also like the road bending through the picture leading ones eyes to the farm. I wouldn't crop it any different. The only thing I might do is lighten shadows slightly to make the picture brighter.
Swede
Swede
Jul 27, 2014 21:45:02 #
I tried your idea of cropping on the left, altho a bit less so as to not make the pic seem so elongated. Here's the result. I think it's improved, but what do you all think? I also tried to reduce the noise that was noted in another comment, but there didn't seem to be any difference. If I could go back to the scene, I'd look into lowering the camera five feet, per another comment, altho as I recall, there was brush in front of me which precluded that. In any event, I appreciate all the feedback.
lighthouse wrote:
I prefer the composition of the first one.
Reflections quite often look better if they are more symmetrical, more centralised, ie, if they are not lined up as "thirds".
First image is central, second image is "thirds".
If anything, I would leave the right side as it is and crop a little off the left to centralise it better.
Reflections quite often look better if they are more symmetrical, more centralised, ie, if they are not lined up as "thirds".
First image is central, second image is "thirds".
If anything, I would leave the right side as it is and crop a little off the left to centralise it better.
Jul 27, 2014 17:50:54 #
Thanks. When I took the pic, I couldn't crop at all, as I was barely able to get flag at the top in as well as its reflection, as it was, since my back was up against a fence while taking it!
LFingar wrote:
The 2nd one definitely focuses your attention on the subject better. Properly matted and framed it would look fine, IMO.
Jul 27, 2014 16:49:15 #
I would appreciate opinions on which of these two pix are most liked. They are the very same pic, yet I cropped the initial one to eliminate the extraneous foliage on the right and thus better direct the view of the reader to the church and its reflection. Yet that cropping results in a somewhat elongated pic, which to my eye anyway, isn't as pleasing as the more customary shape. Please help me with this dilemma - thanks!
More customary shape
Elongated shape
Jul 27, 2014 16:42:33 #
You may not have had any choice if you don't live near there, but it would be great to see the pic in sunlight, perferably an early morning or late afternoon sun. Having shot pix in the past in the northeast, I know that the sun can really brighten those colors.
Artiekay wrote:
I posted this shot on another forum awhile back and got some interesting feedback. I thought I would post it here to see what people here thought about it.
Rick
Rick
Jul 16, 2014 08:24:32 #
I guess the bottom line, if I'm out somewhere without a scrim and do not have the ability in PP for combining two different exposures, I'd better find a flower that does not have those hotspots!
RichieC wrote:
Our eyes are like a flashlight in a dark room, you... (show quote)
Jul 14, 2014 23:02:33 #
While there may yet be more comments, I want to now thank all of you who have replied to my inititial question on this subject.
I was always aware of our cameras not being able to record as extensive a range between highlights and shadows as our eyes can. However, in the hotspot problem with my lily pix, I failed to see that it was another case of our eyes having a larger contrast range than my camera.
I was always aware of our cameras not being able to record as extensive a range between highlights and shadows as our eyes can. However, in the hotspot problem with my lily pix, I failed to see that it was another case of our eyes having a larger contrast range than my camera.
Jul 14, 2014 15:53:42 #
Correct - there is no CPF for direct attachment to an SX-40. You'd have to buy an adapter to go along with it.
R.G. wrote:
I may be wrong in this (feel free to correct me if I am), but doesn't an overhead sun reflecting off of things give very polarised light? And if that's the case, wouldn't a polarised filter help reduce the glare?
OK - you probably can't get a CPF for an SX40, but I thought I'd mention it as a possibility for those who have that option.
EDIT - Just seen Madman's post above (looks like you beat me to it :D ).
OK - you probably can't get a CPF for an SX40, but I thought I'd mention it as a possibility for those who have that option.
EDIT - Just seen Madman's post above (looks like you beat me to it :D ).
Jul 14, 2014 08:26:42 #
Thanks. I hadn't thought of that, since many of the flowers in that plot are other forms of lilies, which last more than one night. But no doubt, that elusive one of mine, was elusive because it was a true daylily - it gave me one chance, but that was it!
Gary Truchelut wrote:
The reason you couldn't find the same flower is that it is only open for one day hence the name daylily.
Jul 13, 2014 21:44:44 #
I meant sensor size, not lens size. So much for my proofreading!
BigWahoo wrote:
By cropping smaller you will lose sharpness.
It is not the lens size but the sensor size that will determine sharpness of the resulting print.
Realizing this was not an optimal picture I have done a severe crop to show.
If I wanted a photo of just a dragon fly wing I would obtain a wing to mount and photograph. I haven't pulled the wings off of a fly since I was a young child.
It is not the lens size but the sensor size that will determine sharpness of the resulting print.
Realizing this was not an optimal picture I have done a severe crop to show.
If I wanted a photo of just a dragon fly wing I would obtain a wing to mount and photograph. I haven't pulled the wings off of a fly since I was a young child.
Jul 13, 2014 12:17:36 #
Good advice, in fact I tried to do that a couple days later. But it's a very large flower bed (in a park), and I just couldn't find that very same flower - very frustrating..... :(
:( :(
twowindsbear wrote:
The dynamic range of this scene exceeds the dynamic range of your camera.
The easiest 'remedy' would be to shoot the flower when the sunlight is not quite so intense - but, you mentioned that.
Our eyes & brain compensate and can 'see' the wide dynamic range of the scene.
IMHO, of course
The easiest 'remedy' would be to shoot the flower when the sunlight is not quite so intense - but, you mentioned that.
Our eyes & brain compensate and can 'see' the wide dynamic range of the scene.
IMHO, of course
:( :(
Jul 13, 2014 12:09:47 #
By such a reflector, do you mean something I would hold against the sun in one hand, while taking the pic with the other hand? The location I took the pic is where it'd be awkward to use a stationary reflector and where I'm usually alone, so wouldn't have someone who could hold it for me. Thanks again.
Haydon wrote:
Use a transparent reflector to diffuse the light. Flowers are evenly lit then without the hotspots.
http://www.amazon.com/Neewer-43-Inch-Collapsible-Multi-Disc-Reflector/dp/B002ZIMEMW
http://www.amazon.com/Neewer-43-Inch-Collapsible-Multi-Disc-Reflector/dp/B002ZIMEMW
Jul 13, 2014 11:59:04 #
Good dragonfly pic, especially considering the conditions. But if you did crop it, e.g., if you wanted a pic of just one wing, I assume you would lose some sharpness. So my question is, if the pic had been taken with a camera with a larger lens, do you think the resulting cropped pic would have been sharper?
BigWahoo wrote:
I agree the effect is the same.
With a 1000 mm or more lens I am able to fill the frame on most shots. So my cropping is usually at a minimum.
The attached photo was taken close to the beach with the wind blowing about 15-20mph from the effects of Hurricane Aurthur.
My framing was off on this shot it has no PP
With a 1000 mm or more lens I am able to fill the frame on most shots. So my cropping is usually at a minimum.
The attached photo was taken close to the beach with the wind blowing about 15-20mph from the effects of Hurricane Aurthur.
My framing was off on this shot it has no PP
Jul 13, 2014 11:51:24 #
Below is a pic of a lily where part of the yellow petal is all white, due to the reflection of a bright sun on it. In looking at the pic with my naked eye, the petal was all yellow, i.e., the left side was not burned out. Yet when viewing the pic thru my camera, the left side was almost fully white, just like in the below pic.
I tried full exposure compensation, but no reduction in the extent of the whiteness. This is the pic that came out of the camera - in Photoshop I tried to darken that area to bring out the yellow, but had no success.
Is this phenomenon something we are just stuck with, or is there something that can be done when taking such pix to minimize this effect of the sun's reflection (other of course than taking it at a different time of day, on a cloudy day, etc.)? If relevant, I took the pic with a relatively inexpensive bridge camera (Canon SX-40HS.) Thanks.
I tried full exposure compensation, but no reduction in the extent of the whiteness. This is the pic that came out of the camera - in Photoshop I tried to darken that area to bring out the yellow, but had no success.
Is this phenomenon something we are just stuck with, or is there something that can be done when taking such pix to minimize this effect of the sun's reflection (other of course than taking it at a different time of day, on a cloudy day, etc.)? If relevant, I took the pic with a relatively inexpensive bridge camera (Canon SX-40HS.) Thanks.
lily with part of petal burned out
Jul 13, 2014 11:23:29 #
While I don't print much, let alone over 16x20, I do crop quite a bit on some pix, and I believe the sharpness does suffer with smaller sensors if one crops too much.
BigWahoo wrote:
Bridge cameras are catching up to DSLRs on most of those counts.
The super zoom bridge cameras will always have much smaller sensors.
Unless you are going to print over 16x20 I don't believe it will matter to most.
The super zoom bridge cameras will always have much smaller sensors.
Unless you are going to print over 16x20 I don't believe it will matter to most.