[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

[ryart]

Originally Posted by Malone

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

Thanks for the feedback - you were getting me worried. I have just bought and installed a new monitor and despite calibrating with Huey Pro have had a feeling that something wasn't quite right. Thank you for your comments.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by dazza74

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

Well just to put the record straight, I have the greatest respect for Steve's skills and I would add Liquids wonderfully sensitive compositions with a sense of space and place, Tobers great skill with an incredibly difficult subject, Gordons@'s imagination and creative skills, jomikes exceptional macro skills, Radioheads talent for capturing the sense of the occasion... I could go on and on. (sorry to those I've missed out)

No matter how much experience we may have as professional or amateur or clapped out ex professional, there is much we can learn from each other. That doesn't mean that we can't disagree and discuss our reasons for so doing. I may have given the impression of instantly dismissing Steve's views on grad ND (apologies if so) but this is something I've thought about over a long time. It is the different perspectives on a photograph that make this forum so interesting and valuable. We can probably all agree on what is exceptional and maybe on what is rubbish but in between there is a huge grey area which we can enjoy debating.

Many thanks for your, and others comments. Do hope this sets the record straight.

Cheers, Malcolm

[cedmondson]

Originally Posted by ryart

It is the different perspectives on a photograph that make this forum so interesting and valuable. We can probably all agree on what is exceptional and maybe on what is rubbish but in between there is a huge grey area which we can enjoy debating.

Well said - totally agree
Looking back on the year or two I've dabbled here, I recognise though that distinguishing between 'faults' and matters of taste is by no means clear cut. I recently discovered this rather interesting interactive download from the RPS - it is supposed to be a guide for potential Licenciateship applicants, but regardless, an interesting way to check whether your own views tally with theirs.

[stevegreen]

Originally Posted by ryart

No matter how much experience we may have as professional or amateur or clapped out ex professional, there is much we can learn from each other. That doesn't mean that we can't disagree and discuss our reasons for so doing. I may have given the impression of instantly dismissing Steve's views on grad ND (apologies if so) but this is something I've thought about over a long time. It is the different perspectives on a photograph that make this forum so interesting and valuable. We can probably all agree on what is exceptional and maybe on what is rubbish but in between there is a huge grey area which we can enjoy debating.

I agree wholeheartedly and I am glad that you didn't take offence at my comments.

I must admit I was hesitant about posting the comment I did as I didn't want to come across as overly critical (thus the 'without wanting to sound like' comment), particulalry given your thread title, but I stand by what I said, this is what is great about photography and the difference of peoples opinion. At the end of the day, everyone is right in their view of the photograph because it what they saw, envisaged or remembered.

Originally Posted by cedmondson

I recently discovered this rather interesting interactive download from the RPS - it is supposed to be a guide for potential Licenciateship applicants, but regardless, an interesting way to check whether your own views tally with theirs.

Yep, it's interesting isn't it. Some of the LRPS, ARPS and even FRPS panels I have seen have suprised me. One FRPS panel I saw was just 20+ photographs of some rusted corrugated iron, but, it was the way it was done, each and every one looked like a landscape shot.......Superb stuff indeed when all images were up, but I was certainly scratching my head after the first few

[ryart]

Thank you both very much. I was worried that I had come across as overly defensive, grumpy and bolshie; mainly because I probably was .

[dazza74]

Apologies for my comments earlier "Ryart", think I got a bit carried away appreciate that you took it in good spirit.

[Gordon @ Convergent AV]

Well I think those are some nice landscapes.

[Gingerbillc]

I like the 1st picture. At 1st I thought it looked over exposed but looking again, it gives a better impression of a hot dry day. Lovely countryside where you live, Bolton, we have moors....(bleak even in summer)

[Tobers]

Morning all. #2 is the best of the set in my opinion. Nicely abstract but with dynamic lines. I wouldn't worry too much about the sky in the first, it looks like one of those typically English light grey hazy over-bright days.

One thing you could do to really improve these is take them late in the day when the light is lower, and you'll get a much more special-looking feel to the pics. The form of the landscape will be picked out by skimming light, and the tones will feel much warmer and more welcoming. Using a polariser will also help a great deal as it will provide colour saturation which you cant really replicate in Photoshop.

Using ND grads is a good plan in the right situations, but it can backfire when used incorrectly. For example, a "hard" ND grad used on a mountainous landscape will look too obvious as the line of the grad will go straight across the picture. A "soft" grad will be less obvious but can still be spotted. Best solution in that situation is to bracket the exposures and then merge them in Photoshop or whatever, painting through the underexposed sky shot using a mask to reveal the correctly exposed land.

If you've got a level(ish) horizon, they do work very well, especially when used with a polariser where the sky has little fluffy clouds in it. Example below with a soft 0.6 grad:

It's worth investing in good kit. The Cokin ND filters I had put a purple/magenta cast on my pics. The Lee filters I now use are superb quality and dont create any colour cast at all. Whilst expensive (!!) they will last forever and are a sound investment.

Ta for the comments on my ability by the way. I'm just like everyone else - a keen amateur who is passionate and likes experimenting. I remember some of my first pics when I got my first DSLR - a Canon 350D. I knew nothing about filters, exposure etc and took what I thought were good shots but were in fact crap. I cringe when I look back at them, but they were essential steps on a journey of discovery which I'm still on. This forum kept me enthused and encouraged trying lots of new techniques. One of my first posts from Jan 2007 below - love that blown sky!

Tobers

[ryart]

Mornin' Tobers

Originally Posted by Tobers

One thing you could do to really improve these is take them late in the day when the light is lower, and you'll get a much more special-looking feel to the pics. The form of the landscape will be picked out by skimming light, and the tones will feel much warmer and more welcoming.

You are absolutely right, and the low evening sun would be in just the right place for the folds in the landscape to cast some lovely shadows. If I can drag myself away from the Tour de France I intend popping up there for another go. As it is the pictures I posted were taken then because we happened to be there at that time, after one too many in the pub at Jevington . These days most of my pictures are grabbed in passing rather than as a result of going on a specific shoot, but the comments here are relighting a bit of enthusiam to go out specifically to take pictures.

Your thoughts on ND grads are spot on as well. They're not for me though but used with care, and the same goes for polarisers, in such a way that their use is undetectable they can be a useful tool.

Originally Posted by Tobers

Ta for the comments on my ability by the way. I'm just like everyone else - a keen amateur who is passionate and likes experimenting..

Actually, I think it is passion from many of those that post here that shines through, and is quite inspirational. I have to confess that years of taking pictures to order has soaked up the passion I used to have. I'm trying to reignite it, particularly in the field () of my first love, landscape photography.