Posts for: PeterBergh
Dec 7, 2018 11:07:01 #
The light is wonderful and you have brought out great details in the shadows. If it were my picture, however, I would consider cropping off the trees on the left; I don't feel they contribute to the image.
Dec 6, 2018 21:59:13 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Peter - looking at the details of your post / comm... (show quote)
Since you have placed me on your ignore list, I have no choice but to castigate you in public; I would have much preferred to send this angry note in a PM.
I find your suggestions quite condescending and condescending behavior drives me up the wall.
I am aware of how to resize an image on export from LR. I prefer to maintain the original resolution when possible.
I am aware of diffraction. In fact, for the 5DS R, the DLA is around F6.5, if memory serves (The Digital Picture gives the DLA as part of its camera reviews). I choose F16 as a good compromise between diffraction and depth of field.
I do not believe that I hijacked the thread. The thread title talks about using long lenses in landscape photography; I added an example of the use of a long lens for a landscape. The rule you quote comes from the Photo Gallery where, indeed, my post would have been inappropriate.
In the future, please refrain from condescension and do not criticize me or my behavior without good grounds. You may criticize others to your heart's content, but you should be prepared for similar reactions. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is now over.
Dec 6, 2018 21:22:02 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
#2. The greyscale make the image more interesting.
THX
Dec 6, 2018 18:09:07 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Much appreciated!
You're quite welcome.
Dec 6, 2018 17:45:12 #
bertloomis wrote:
I do not care for either of them. Not enough contrast.
Your comment confuses me. In LR's Develop module, I measured a very dark point and a very bright point on both the color and the B/W version. Color: dark 23,27,16; light 97,98,93. B/W: dark 19,19,19; light 94,94,94. Based on these measurements, I would say that the contrast is adequate. Should you refer to local contrast: the amount of local contrast is, as dsmeltz pointed out, the photographer's choice. If you don't like the amount of local contrast, you are free to dislike it; I think the local contrast is fine.
Furthermore, the question asked in the original post was: which is better. I'm not sure how to interpret your comment in this regard. Is it an "abstain" vote or did you simply not care to state which of the two you think is least bad?
The bottom line is that your comment didn't contribute to the discussion.
Dec 6, 2018 17:29:49 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
In what way is this different from Ch_Canon's suggestion? I'm just trying to understand the subtleties here.
CH_CANON suggested changing the black and white points and the exposure; I had already gone as far as I want along the black-and-white-points route and I think the exposure is fine as it is. CanadaBoy suggested boosting contrast. Using LR, I boosted Contrast a bit, Vibrance a bit, and Saturation by very little.
Dec 6, 2018 17:17:23 #
Another example of a long-focal-length-lens landscape. In this case, I had no choice; the land between me and the subject was private property and I have no desire to be charged with second-degree criminal trespass. Furthermore, had I been closer to the trees, they would have dwarfed the background, so necessity became a virtue.
Dec 6, 2018 17:07:50 #
robertjerl wrote:
Don't forget you will need one of the adapters to use your EF lenses on the RF mount. The three, made by Canon (3rd party are appearing) are $99, $199 and $399 depending on which you get. ...
A slight amplification: the $99 adapter is available now. For several weeks, B&H have said that the $199 adapter (the one with a control ring) has an expected delivery time of 7 to 14 days. The $299 and $399 adapters (actually, the same adapter but with different filter inserts) are not expected until February 2019.
Dec 6, 2018 16:43:06 #
New version of #1 from the original post in this topic. Many thanks are due to CanadaBoy who pointed out a possible edit.
Dec 6, 2018 16:35:17 #
Dec 6, 2018 16:33:50 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Thank you, Peter. #1 in particular seems to just go on forever, quite mystical. Where shot?
#1 is a view from the road side, somewhere in NC. The picture is 30 years old and I'm old and gaga, so I can''t give you more information.
#2 is a view from Pigeon Mountain, GA
Dec 6, 2018 16:30:34 #
debbie wrazen wrote:
... PS Both of your photos are beautiful.
Thanks
Dec 6, 2018 10:50:10 #
canadaboy wrote:
Screen shot from my PC
Thanks much for your edits -- much appreciated. The main difference I see (in the downloaded screen shot) between the two pictures is that yours is more saturated. To my eyes, your version is a trifle too saturated and mine may well be a bit under-saturated. I will play around with saturation and vibrance in Lightroom and see if I like a more saturated version. (Since you used PS and I am a total duffer at PS, I need to learn more about PS before I can benefit from your expertise.) If I like a more saturated version (probably somewhere between yours and mine), I will post the result.
Dec 6, 2018 10:38:32 #
A couple of my softer stories
Dec 6, 2018 10:21:34 #
fergmark wrote:
Both photos look as thought they are the result of HDR? The first also looks as if it has been sharpened a great deal, but could be something else. Up close, its more interesting than the whole. IMO. The second shot is a very cool composition. I feel it would benefit from a nudge to the darker with a decrease in saturation.
The saturation in the second shot has not been changed from the way it came from the camera; the saturation was present in the scene.
Regarding HDR: I probably used HDR. To me, what matters is the picture, not the steps used to get there.
I am, however, very glad you felt they were worthy of comment.