Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
  

Archive 2012 · For play
  
 
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · For play


Travis Rhoads wrote:
Assuming you are using the 1DsIII that is listed in your EXIF on the image above...that body won't go over ISO 800 without noticeable noise?


Not to this old Kodachrome 25 guy. I have used 1600 and it looks ok at web size when there is not a lot of detail, but not for printing.

I just downloaded some 6D and 5d3 raws and as far as I am concerned, 1600 is about the limit for those cameras. Maybe somebody has better NR skills than me.




Dec 27, 2012 at 06:10 PM
Travis Rhoads
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · For play


I guess it all depends on subject and printing plans.


Dec 27, 2012 at 06:12 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · For play


That image was 17mm f4.5 and ISO400 at 25 seconds. But it was already starting to get light. At 50mm I will need 1/10 second max and would like f4.

I am not sure where I will end up. This is sort of a technical exercise for a while. Using the moon as the light source is sort of a new venue (If you don't count Moonlight Hernandez). I see lots of milky way stuff and also using light painting or star trails. This is none of those.

I have not gotten a great one yet and maybe it just wont work. I think people shy away from dark images.



Dec 27, 2012 at 06:21 PM
Travis Rhoads
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · For play


I don't have a problem with dark ...if you can make a dark image appealing, that is creatively, and technically difficult...so people shy away from it.


Dec 27, 2012 at 06:25 PM
kwoodard
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · For play


Just a little quick play with the image. Didn't touch sharpness or did anything to bring back any detail. Might play some more later.

Mainly only touched the histogram, exposure and gamma.


Test by Kevin.Woodard, on Flickr



Dec 27, 2012 at 07:23 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · For play


Looks pretty much the way I visualized it. I still see the sky banding, very strange.


Dec 27, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Travis Rhoads
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · For play


I get that sky banding when reducing files for posting on the web, my originals don't have it on screen, or when printed.


Dec 27, 2012 at 08:24 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · For play


I took the raw and viewed it several ways. If I dupe the layer and mulitply, I start to see some minor banding at "fit to screen" size. If I zoom out (smaller image) it gets worse. So the process of darkening and reducing size emphasizes the banding. It could be atmospheric haze, the lake is famous for it. Or it could be something with the sensor. No filters were used.

But it seems the cause in in the original just waiting to be revealed with processing.



Dec 27, 2012 at 08:48 PM
kwoodard
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · For play


Ahh, the banding seen here are compression artifacts. Took me a bit to see what you were talking about.


Dec 27, 2012 at 08:56 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · For play


Up at 5:15AM, at Saratoga Springs at 6:00AM a full 2 hours before sunrise (still dark as I type)

I was looking for a fairly clear sky and full moon. Instead the clouds were so thick that the moon could not be seen, it was snowing and the visibility was about 2 miles.

Tried to get to my spot for a picture and found 2 foot snow drifts on a steep slope so I decided to go back home and wait until Tuesday which is supposed to be clear.

Not sure how I will get to my spot because the snow will still be there and probably deeper.



Dec 28, 2012 at 01:59 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Travis Rhoads
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · For play


bummer Ben, sorry to hear that...


Dec 28, 2012 at 02:02 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · For play


Hi Travis. The Wasatch front Range I am shooting here is considered the western edge of the Rocky Mountains and the start of the Great Basin. Utah is noted for its powder snow but this side has fairly mild winters. I never got out my snow shovel last year. This year looks like a real winter though.

This is a piece of cake compared to Spokane Washington/North Idaho where I lived the previous 30 years. I will have my shoot sooner or later. Even a practice run like this is better than setting in my basement all day chasing the forums.


Edited on Dec 28, 2012 at 02:19 PM · View previous versions



Dec 28, 2012 at 02:10 PM
Travis Rhoads
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · For play


I was going to say that it sure beats sitting in the office working all day...but that seemed obvious! Enjoy your time outdoors...I sure wish I was out shooting today.


Dec 28, 2012 at 02:15 PM
Camperjim
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · For play


I think a different point of view would have helped this image. Shooting at normal height with the camera pointed straight ahead and leveled in all directions may not always be the best point of view. If you had shot this from a lower angle, a lot of the water would have been eliminating leaving more space for the more interesting textures of the mountains and foreground grasses. At least the horizon line was not dead centered.

I eliminated some of the water and also darkened the sky as a quick example of what I believe would have helped.





original







edited




Dec 28, 2012 at 02:35 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · For play


Hi Jim. The reeds prevent me getting closer to the water. I have traveled the entire lake looking for an unobstructed view. This is about as good as it gets for this part of the lake. Further south I can get to waters edge but with lots of rocks and less interesting mountains. And today it would be impassable anyway.

This was a scout shot and yes, for my moonlight shot I had planned to point upward and get more sky. But for daytime and bare sky this was not attractive. This image is already cropped from the bottom. I also have tighter shots even a 70mm. But they cut off the mountain. To get the entire front of Timpanogos from this location requires about 50mm.

Also, a 70mm shot with stars requires a fairly fast shutter.

The art of moonlit shots is complicated technically and getting a pleasing comp is made especially difficult.

I want to learn how to do it well, then I might try one at Mesa Arch. A full moon there on a clear morning might be very unique. Last time I was there some guys were light painting, but it looks too fake for me. But a full moon would illuminate the entire scene. I would probably do it off season to avoid the crowds and light painters.





Dec 28, 2012 at 02:53 PM
Camperjim
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · For play


Ben, I don't think you needed to be closer to the water. In fact that would likely leave even less foreground and more plain water. I am suggesting that you get lower to diminish the amount of water and to emphasize the foreground and mountains.

Obviously if you shoot at night and include stars and/or star trails that would be an entirely different sort of image and composition.



Dec 28, 2012 at 03:09 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · For play


Hi Jim, I had to shoot over a wall so could not get lower. I don't like star trails, I try to freeze the star motion which requires using a shutter speed formula of 600/fl. But I find even faster is better. This is why one is forced toward wider lenses and higher ISO and faster aperature.

Anyway, this is one approach to doing the icons with something different. I have done a couple of these at Zion. Practicing around home is just practice.

http://ben-egbert-photo.com/?page_id=1041



Dec 28, 2012 at 03:35 PM
Travis Rhoads
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · For play


Allow me to get off topic just slightly...chase a rabbit if you will...do you have a section on your site for shooting the moon? The image you have with the cloned in moon at Deer Creek...stunning, and something I have tried to do, and FAILED miserably at...


Dec 28, 2012 at 03:42 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · For play


Exposing for the moon is not hard, but everything else will be really dark. The problem is you need another shot with the rest of the scene properly exposed. In that shot, the moon is blown and there will be flare and a very large area around the moon is much lighter.

If you use the sky from the well exposed moon shot, the sky is black and no stars will show or very few. If you clone just the well exposed moon into the other shot, you need to repair the sky. That is really hard as there is a tremendous gradation of color and brightness. I worked at at and eventually decided to do this sort of image with the moon out of the shot.

The example you like is ok at web size, but will not stand printing.

If anyone here has a secret for fixing the sky I would love to hear it.

That Deer Creek res shot might have been a once in a lifetime deal. The water was very high last year and this year most of the reflected area is dry land.



Dec 28, 2012 at 04:05 PM
1       2      
3
       end




FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password