Thanks for the kind words, everyone, much appreciated. fracas wrote:
Can you give us some technical detail about this magical shots (exposure time, filters, PP, ...)?
Thanks, francesco
Of course. They were both 1-2 minute exposures. No filters were used.
I have used filters in the past, like grad NDs, and have used the magic cloth method as well with some success, but those methods are somewhat limited and work better in some situations than they do in others. Because of this, I've been trying to work on manual exposure blends in photoshop lately, when needed.
For the second shot there was no exposure blending, the DR was fine already. The original image was pretty flat, though. The only thing I had to do in post is increase the contrast. I always apply midtone and global contrast adjustments as layers with masks so that they are not applied to areas that don't need them (such as areas where they would blow out highlights.) Also, although this image was rather flat in terms of contrast straight out of camera, it was already plenty saturated. Therefore, had I done normal contrast adjustments to the image, I'd have lost a ton of color depth and would have made the picture look pretty silly, really. So all levels adjustments were set to 'luminosity' or were done in LAB mode (which only affects luminosity.) The only other thing I did to that image (I did this to the first one as well) was to insert a 'grad filter' in post to the very top. I did this because I felt that the sky which was getting progressively brighter on top was drawing the eye away from the subject.
The first one did require a manual exposure blend. One for the sky (and city), one for everything else. It was also obviously cropped, but I don't think I did anything else to it.
I'm thinking I might stick to this method (exposure blending) as long as I can tolerate it. For one thing, I simply can't afford several grad ND filters. But it's also more flexible, I think. My next purchase will likely instead go to a high quality (square style) strong ND filter with adapters for all of my lenses, so I can get long exposures at any time of day at any focal length.
Both of the white balance settings were probably on the cool side, moreso for the second, I think.
It's important to note, I think, that the biggest determining factor in the color/tones of those photos was the lighting. The first has fog which is much cooler than the sky tones shown because the orange glow was really only there for about the amount of space shown in the photo. The rest of the sky was still blue at this point, and was therefore lighting the fog with a cool color (from that perspective.) Both shots were only possible in a small window of time.
Hellmat - interesting to hear that it is not as big as you thought. May be it balances well.
Vincent - I like the B/W tree portrait.
Bif - I really like the merging highway shot. Very good comp. I just noticed there is a net at the juncture. It must be preventing motorcyclists ( or cars ) to fall down.
Bjolly - WOW, Awesome shots!! Appreciate generosity to share your PP technique.
Peire- Great to see your work ! Lovely color. I am drawn to #2,4,5,6,8,10
Romain- Wonderful series from Myanmar. I really like the birds eye view onto the boat. Great find.
feto - I love that shot. Beautiful capture of rain streak.
Every time I use ZF.2 21, I am blown away by its image quality. It is a difficult focal distance for me, so I always need to get reacquainted.
Lovely examples to showcase the 35 f/2.4 Flectogon, Thanks for sharing. I purchased this lens yesterday on eBay.. Now the long anxious wait begins for it to arrive safely.
akul wrote:
Hellmat - interesting to hear that it is not as big as you thought. May be it balances well.
It isn't what I would call 'too big', that's for sure. Certainly less girth than the 85L, that's for sure. I am impressed by the bokeh and short MFD, and yet it still has the pop of the 35/2.
akul wrote:
Every time I use ZF.2 21, I am blown away by its image quality. It is a difficult focal distance for me, so I always need to get reacquainted.
I have trouble with the 50mm Akul, I've got the makro50 in my bag and its rarely used ...just cannot get it to be anything but factual and the last thing I want to record are the facts (grin).
You like the city too (and a good walk), I love that the light and shadow can change from street to street and the buildings make for great and soft reflectors ...and no shortage of zero-pay and non-union performers.
I love pics of city objects and buildings as well and find that the 21 works best if you let it tell you what it wants to take pics of instead of forcing it to be a 50mm
Its a pretty cool hobby we have Akul ...aren't we lucky you and I.
saravk wrote:
....Lovely examples to showcase the 35 f/2.4 Flectogon, Thanks for sharing. I purchased this lens yesterday on eBay.. Now the long anxious wait begins for it to arrive safely.
Thanks, I'm sure you'll love it. Here's a few more recent images taken with it...
OneAnt wrote:
I love pics of city objects and buildings as well and find that the 21 works best if you let it tell you what it wants to take pics of instead of forcing it to be a 50mm
Its a pretty cool hobby we have Akul ...aren't we lucky you and I.
Ant.
Ant. That is one beautiful statement. It is so true. Whenever I let go of the preconceived idea of what 21 'should' be used, and let it be what it wants to, I tend to like the outcome. Quite a cool hobby indeed, and good to be reminded how lucky that we have this outlet.
Thanks. I hear you Carsten. I was so busy this week, I needed to be in nature even for a little time to unwind.
Oh by the way, off the topic, you have Gitzo 1542 don't you ? How do you like it? My crappy benro is definitely dying. Wanted to hear your opinion.
Yes, I have the GT1542T, the traveller version, with the Markins Q3T, the "matching" head. I like it very much, it is very light yet decently robust, and it packs quite small. I wouldn't try to use much more than a 180 with it, nor anything very heavy in windy conditions, but if you are a bit careful and don't try to do too much, it is perfect. I still have my big tripod, which I use for anything serious, like the UrbEx I am doing at the moment.
I was a bit disappointed to find out that the shorter column of the old version is no more, and the column is now full-length, meaning that the ballhead sticks out instead of fitting between the legs, in collapsed state. Ultimately it isn't a big deal, it was just a "what the?" moment for me, since I bought exactly this ballhead thinking that it would fit. I would say that if you wanted to combine this head with this tripod, just get the regular Q3, it is slightly nicer at the base.
