Ray - I'm not sure what you're asking, "are there different frames of the same subjects where the mood is different", do you mean are there pics of the same people but I've caught them smiling or happy so I don't use them because they're not "dark" enough? Or do you mean are there pics of happy people generally which I don't use because of my "dark" style?
The answer is no, I don't reject subjects because they're too light or happy. See, I don't think I take pics of forlorn people, not on purpose anyway. And don't laugh, but I don't actually see my pics as dark. To me, it all just seems normal. I never think, oh, I want to make this dark or darker, it just comes out that way. But isn't that how everyone works - their pics that seem normal to them. Everyone on here has a style that seems reflect how they see things. It's funny, people on here comment about the darkness, but I don't get that generally.
After looking at the map I estimated the tip of the little river island where the eagle and a couple of herons were hanging around, is about a 1000 feet away from where folks line up with their tripods.
anitrone wrote:
Did you share photos from that trip?
Amazing piece of glass, to get an image over 1.63 miles away...wow!
bruni wrote:
Ray - I'm not sure what you're asking, "are there different frames of the same subjects where the mood is different", do you mean are there pics of the same people but I've caught them smiling or happy so I don't use them because they're not "dark" enough? Or do you mean are there pics of happy people generally which I don't use because of my "dark" style?
The answer is no, I don't reject subjects because they're too light or happy. See, I don't think I take pics of forlorn people, not on purpose anyway. And don't laugh, but I don't actually see my pics as dark. To me, it all just seems normal. I never think, oh, I want to make this dark or darker, it just comes out that way. But isn't that how everyone works - their pics that seem normal to them. Everyone on here has a style that seems reflect how they see things. It's funny, people on here comment about the darkness, but I don't get that generally.
Great to hear your perspective on your photo style, makes total sense to me. That's probably one key aspect of your consistent style and quality output.
With respect to your three questions above, I was asking the first question.
This is one of the last real red moons, lit by the earth shadow. This moon is dark, can hardly see it with the naked eye, had to focus on the stars.
Could not improve via LR and on1 noise.
Ended processing Capture NXD and on1 noise. I can get almost all results with NXD that I get with LR develop, just takes longer.
800mm 5.6, no TCs, this moon is dark, the difference from bright to dark is extreme, some of the most difficult processing for contrast I have ever done.
A double diffraction star Doug? Never seen that before! Hidden 105mm talent.
Nice use of the 15mm Laura. Impressive handholding on a DSLR even.
For those that missed out on the 800mm f5.6, I see that there are at least a couple more on *bay, but out of Japan and somewhat more expensive. A second person here can use it I'm sure. (No I did not buy the one that Chuong posted about). I'd likely not use it much, I like to stay smallish in my system; that is the sole reason I did not give in to the 300 f4.5K temptation that hit me a few pages back here. Likely the reason I won't even try for a 400mm f5.6 either (though George showing off his non-IF copy not too long ago stirred some desire).
A lot of talk, better add a picture. Fall is over, so this one is a couple weeks back. 55mm f2.8 AIS.
After looking at the map I estimated the tip of the little river island where the eagle and a couple of herons were hanging around, is about a 1000 feet away from where folks line up with their tripods.
Okay now my memory is catching up with me, I did see those photos...that is quite the kit to carry around, but well worth it for shots of eagles.
Ben,
Even though every element in that photo is full of interest - the sky dominates, and ties it together at the same time. Going "bright" was a brilliant (pun) detour.
Jim
bruni wrote:
Here's a bright pic - nikon 18mm f3.5
Rafael, Well done. The moon is a tough nut to crack, and one in shadow is even more difficult. You certainly are prepared equipment wise with that glistening 800mm f5.6, and gimbal.
Jim
rafaelcasd wrote:
This is one of the last real red moons, lit by the earth shadow. This moon is dark, can hardly see it with the naked eye, had to focus on the stars.
Could not improve via LR and on1 noise.
Ended processing Capture NXD and on1 noise. I can get almost all results with NXD that I get with LR develop, just takes longer.
800mm 5.6, no TCs, this moon is dark, the difference from bright to dark is extreme, some of the most difficult processing for contrast I have ever done.
bruni wrote:
Ray - I'm not sure what you're asking, "are there different frames of the same subjects where the mood is different", do you mean are there pics of the same people but I've caught them smiling or happy so I don't use them because they're not "dark" enough? Or do you mean are there pics of happy people generally which I don't use because of my "dark" style?
The answer is no, I don't reject subjects because they're too light or happy. See, I don't think I take pics of forlorn people, not on purpose anyway. And don't laugh, but I don't actually see my pics as dark. To me, it all just seems normal. I never think, oh, I want to make this dark or darker, it just comes out that way. But isn't that how everyone works - their pics that seem normal to them. Everyone on here has a style that seems reflect how they see things. It's funny, people on here comment about the darkness, but I don't get that generally.
Oosty wrote:
Interesting discussion Ben.
Are you willing to run through your workflow? Some the results look like some Nik ColorEfex filters.
Always intriguing.
Yes, of course Peter, but I don't do anything interesting, actually I spend most of my time trying to copy Philippe. No, I don't use ColorEfex, I use Lightroom (I keep trying to wean myself off it but I'm too lazy). I often use the presets In Lightroom, which I tweak a bit. I don't think I do anything different to what I see other people on here doing. For me, the best photo is the one I have to do the least processing on. In Sydney that was easier because the sun was stronger and the transition between light and dark was naturally very stark, I would just shoot people walking in or out of shadow and presto! Here, the light is subtler and so I have to push the transitions a bit. There's nothing special in that is there, isn't that pretty much what everyone does? I'd be interested to hear.
pbraymond wrote:
Great to hear your perspective on your photo style, makes total sense to me. That's probably one key aspect of your consistent style and quality output.
With respect to your three questions above, I was asking the first question.
Maybe they're not sad or happy, maybe it's just what the kids these days call RBF (Resting Bitch Face) ?
rafaelcasd wrote:
This is one of the last real red moons, lit by the earth shadow. This moon is dark, can hardly see it with the naked eye, had to focus on the stars.
Could not improve via LR and on1 noise.
Ended processing Capture NXD and on1 noise. I can get almost all results with NXD that I get with LR develop, just takes longer.
800mm 5.6, no TCs, this moon is dark, the difference from bright to dark is extreme, some of the most difficult processing for contrast I have ever done.
I tried to photograph a red moon once, and it is dark!!! I did not like the results I got at all.
James Markus wrote:
Rafael, Well done. The moon is a tough nut to crack, and one in shadow is even more difficult. You certainly are prepared equipment wise with that glistening 800mm f5.6, and gimbal.
Jim
I happen to like Ben's detour in this one too. The sharp contrast between the building and the person's clothes in shadow, versus the brightness of the blue sky and the light on his face makes it a very striking composition.
James Markus wrote:
Ben,
Even though every element in that photo is full of interest - the sky dominates, and ties it together at the same time. Going "bright" was a brilliant (pun) detour.
Jim
I tried counting Jim, I am finding anywhere between 10-12; maybe if I have another cup of caffeine I will locate more Pleasant scene.
James Markus wrote:
17 Wind turbines (some hard to see) circa 2012 8 vertical image stitch 50mm f1.2 ais downsized from 17,xxx wide to 2169 pixels wide
Yeah, when I got in the car that morning, a long trip wasn't in the plans. I took the new to me vehicle for a "one hour ride" up i-75, and it turned into an excursion up in Wyandot County instead. Tripod was in the Taurus, still.
James Markus wrote:
This is really impressive not only for the rectilinear straight lines, but to hand hold that at such a slow speed.
