At long last, I'm showing some photos

[ryart]

Its taken rather a long time to get around to it, but I've finally signed up for a Flickr account. Not much of a clue what I'm doing at the moment so, hopefully, here are a few shots taken from the top of the South Downs last Saturday.

Thanks for looking

[RobDickinson]

I remember when all that were fields!

[sbowler]

A nice set, keep posting.

[tontoshorse]

Feelds like there's something missing, although its a good abstract set. The 2nd one for me.

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

I remember when all that were fields!

[dazza74]

#1 for me, next time your out to avoid blowing the sky with a shot like this take a meter reading from the blue in the sky and set your shutter speed to what that says and take the pic, don't always work but I find it's a good starting point for getting a good exposure (pretty sure I read that in "Understanding Exposure" by Mr Peterson). Once the skies blown even in raw you can't really bring it back whereas if you expose for the sky you can normally bring back the land in this instance.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by dazza74

#1 for me, next time your out to avoid blowing the sky with a shot like this take a meter reading from the blue in the sky and set your shutter speed to what that says and take the pic, don't always work but I find it's a good starting point for getting a good exposure (pretty sure I read that in "Understanding Exposure" by Mr Peterson). Once the skies blown even in raw you can't really bring it back whereas if you expose for the sky you can normally bring back the land in this instance.

Thanks for the advice but the sky isn't actually blown. Just checked and the lightest part of the sky is R 248, G 254, B255. Getting rather near the limit admittedly, but the picture was meant to be about the field patterns and the shape of the hill. There's plenty on the raw to play with, so I could have darkened it but didn't really want too, nonetheless a worthwhile point for you to make.

[Malone]

For me 4 is best, the undulations really give the image depth, 2 is also really nice. For me number 1 needs a little increase in saturation and contrast, in fact in my opinion all could do with a little contrast increase.
Otherwise really nice shots.

Matt

[Malone]

Originally Posted by dazza74

take a meter reading from the blue in the sky and set your shutter speed to what that says and take the pic, don't always work but I find it's a good starting point for getting a good exposure.

Thanks Dazza thats a nice bit of advice.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by Malone

For me 4 is best, the undulations really give the image depth, 2 is also really nice. For me number 1 needs a little increase in saturation and contrast, in fact in my opinion all could do with a little contrast increase.
Otherwise really nice shots.

Matt

Thanks for your comments. I take your point with number 1, and played around with saturation and contrast when post processing. The trouble is I ended up with something that worked in photographic terms, but then I lost that sultry summer afternoon feeling that was there when I took the picture.

For the others, they can stand quite a differing range of contrast, down to preference really but you've prompted me to have another look at them .

Cheers, Malcolm

[stevegreen]

Originally Posted by ryart

Thanks for the advice but the sky isn't actually blown. Just checked and the lightest part of the sky is R 248, G 254, B255. Getting rather near the limit admittedly, but the picture was meant to be about the field patterns and the shape of the hill.

The sky may not be 'technically' blown but it looks it unfortunately and this does detract from the scene overall, people don't look at numbers, they look at the photograph

Personally I think the shot needs a darker sky to hold the top in, this would also add more impact to the 'misty' hills in the background, giving a nice recession to the shot.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

The sky may not be 'technically' blown but it looks it unfortunately and this does detract from the scene overall, people don't look at numbers, they look at the photograph

Personally I think the shot needs a darker sky to hold the top in, this would also add more impact to the 'misty' hills in the background, giving a nice recession to the shot.

Valid point, although I was making a technical response to what seemed a technical point. I agree that this picture could be made more acceptable from a purely photographic point of view but it would lose the qualities of the original scene. Its often a balancing act between making a picture and representing the original scene; just a question of where to draw the line.

[stevegreen]

Originally Posted by ryart

I agree that this picture could be made more acceptable from a purely photographic point of view but it would lose the qualities of the original scene. Its often a balancing act between making a picture and representing the original scene; just a question of where to draw the line.

I agee it's a balancing act but, without wanting to sound like a complete cock, I find it hard to believe that the 'orginal scene' lacked so much definition in the sky as is represented by this photograph, there are hints of blue and some evidence of clouds but in relation to the rest of the image it is too bright. I reckon that the sky needs probably 2-4 stops of expoure less than the ground section to bring it back to 'about right'. This can easily be achieved at the taking stage with a ND Grad filter, or in post processing with a gradient mask.

If you are looking to represent scenes as they appear to the eye then it might be worth looking at some filters if your camera can take them.

Your eye for composition in the second picture is excellent by the way, maybe a tad off top and botom to get the stream running from opposite corners would help as it would also remove the area of green bottom right

[ryart]

Hi Steve

I accept your point of view even if I happen to disagree with it. You do appear to be a cat hater after all .

I have never owned a ND grad filter for the simple reason that their use often sticks out like a sore thumb (but not always) and ruins an otherwise good picture.

Come to think about it, I can't recall ever having seeing one in any of the photographic departments in which I worked, and I can't think of a single occasion when I felt one was neccesary.

Cheers, Malcolm

[Malone]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

without wanting to sound like a complete cock,

Quality

On a contradictory note, having come home from work I have now viewed on my Mac and I would imagine my work PC's are on the lighter side. Viewed on my Mac they look nearer to the image I was imagining. There's always room for adjustment though so definitely worth a go. Like Steve I too think you have a good eye for a picture.

Matt

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by ryart

Hi Steve

I accept your point of view even if I happen to disagree with it. You do appear to be a cat hater after all .

I have never owned a ND grad filter for the simple reason that their use often sticks out like a sore thumb (but not always) and ruins an otherwise good picture.

Come to think about it, I can't recall ever having seeing one in any of the photographic departments in which I worked, and I can't think of a single occasion when I felt one was neccesary.

Cheers, Malcolm

Really have to disagree with your points here Malcolm, some of the best photographers to grace this forum IMO the likes of "Tobers", "OneFiveNine" etc have all used Lee ND Grad filters with superb effect in the past. I think a lot can be learned from any advice given by Steve, I'd love to have the skill to replicate his photo's especially the recent poppy with gloriously exposed skies