 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / March 2007While you slept. was Re: landscape Photos, boring?
You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring landscape Photos like this! http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm The topic of landscape photos being boring tells me many things about the people who contributed to it... I would like to offer a few words of encouragement to anyone feeling the "boring" syndrome is invading their Photography. Consider where you are. Where you go and what you see. Then throw it all away and go and LOOK for a photograph to take. I drove less than 150 Klm to "find" this location. I stayed in a nearby motel that night just so I could see this breathtaking sunrise... I climbed the mountain (so-to-speak) and found I really did have to come to it. So... Get off your bums, you aren't going to get a photo sitting on them! Douglas St James-Macdonald Wedding Photographer http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com > You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring landscape > Photos like this! [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Wedding Photographer > http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com Lucky my wheelchair has a big battery hey!! >> You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring landscape >> Photos like this! [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Lucky my wheelchair has a big battery hey!! Poor Douglas, he needs to do some post-processing to remove that dreadful distortion of the lighthouse. Spoils an otherwise nice snapshot. He seems to have trouble with lighthouses - remember his shot of a lighthouse, allegedly for a magazine cover, where the lighthouse was actually hidden behind a tree? >>>http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm > Poor Douglas, he needs to do some post-processing to remove that > dreadful distortion of the lighthouse. Spoils an otherwise nice [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lighthouse, allegedly for a magazine cover, where the lighthouse was > actually hidden behind a tree? Do show us yours, Tony. Distortion corrected or otherwise. As to magazine cover shots, we'd love to see your "Paris Match" cover From the late 1970's. In case you've forgotten, here is the reference: ==================================================================== << But I must be fair to the 75-150mm f/4 Zuiko; it made me money, because the results were good enough for several picture editors. One of my shots taken with this lens was on the cover of "Paris Match" in the late 1970s. The two most "profitable" lenses I owned were this and the 24mm f/2.8 Zuiko, which is a fine lens and every bit the equal of the Nikkor.>> -Tony Polson, 2001-02-03::13:32:02, uk.rec.photo.misc, <u41o7to7cs20au6df0sg8f9t5endsku1hm@4ax.com> ==================================================================== ;-) Trent F. -- "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." > Sir Winston Churchill >>>>http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Do show us yours, Tony. Yet another identity for Alan Browne. What a surprise. Just like his friend Dougie. Plonked. >>>>>http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yet another identity for Alan Browne. Ah Tony, you're so perceptive. But please *do* show us a corrected perspective photo of your own. Or your Paris Match cover. C'mon, please. Pretty-please? ;-) Alan. : >>>http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm : [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : > lighthouse, allegedly for a magazine cover, where the lighthouse was : > actually hidden behind a tree? ==================================================================== : << But I must be fair to the 75-150mm f/4 Zuiko; it made me money, : because the results were good enough for several picture editors. One [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : <u41o7to7cs20au6df0sg8f9t5endsku1hm@4ax.com> : ==================================================================== Ha, ha ha... ROTFL at this one! Maybe I ought to post a scan of the letter they sent me about this creep? Terminally ill, not expected to live, I think were his words whilst looking for sympathy in another group... Right up until he got the pension. That was an absolute miracle of the first order! Side Splitting laughter here... Douglas Must have been very early before the sun came up or perhaps your flash was not big enough?? > Photos like this! > http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm : Must have been very early before the sun came up or perhaps your flash was : not big enough?? : : > Photos like this! : > http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm Peter, Peter, Peter. Have you lost the remote tonight? > : Must have been very early before the sun came up or perhaps your flash > was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Peter, Peter, Peter. > Have you lost the remote tonight? Actually I thought I was being helpful pointing out that the link you gave was just showing a black square with no picture, I am over it now though. > You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring landscape > Photos like this!http://www.ryadia.com/morning.htm [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Douglas St James-Macdonald > Wedding Photographerhttp://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com I am only giving my humble opinion, as it is something that I would appreciate. This is no attack on you personally Douglas. I just feel it would be helpful for you to hear other's critiques on your work. This is how we all strive to better ourselves as photographers. I find the pic suffers from distortion....the lighthouse, and I also notice vignetting. Otherwise it would be a lovely pic. Helen >I find the pic suffers from distortion....the lighthouse, In this case I kind of like the distortion as it makes the lighthouse appear to be some strange metallic alien that is looking at the sunrise with me. I think the writing all over the pic, including at the bottom, just ruins it. I find it a little strange that people (and not just Doug) post pictures that they want others to appreciate, and then wreck them on purpose. But, then again, I still don't have my PBase account... Cheers, DuncanC > Duncan Chesley wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > appear to be some strange metallic alien that is looking at the > sunrise with me. The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The sun is behind the lighthouse, so where's the lighting for the lighthouse coming from? Yes, we know a flash or something similar, but that's the point... it's unnatural. Maybe a silhouette of the lighthouse would have been more effective. A little less forground, I think, would have been better, too. Especially since it's unnaturally lit, also. Maybe "painting" the lighthouse only with a flashlight so that only it and not the foreground is lit might be a good effect? Just thinking out loud. Overall, I like the mood and feel of it, just think a couple technical aspects could be better. > I think the writing all over the pic, including at the bottom, just > ruins it. I find it a little strange that people (and not just Doug) > post pictures that they want others to appreciate, and then wreck them > on purpose. Agree completely. My first thought upon seeing was "Ugh!", and it had nothing to do with the photo itself and everything to do with the copyright notice. > The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting > of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The > sun is behind the lighthouse, so where's the lighting for the > lighthouse coming from? Yes, we know a flash or something similar, but > that's the point... it's unnatural. Yeah, makes it look like a bad wedding photo. I don't understand why people use a flash. Two exposures of this scene could have been combined to increase the dynamic range in a way that would have appeared more natural and pleasing. > Overall, I like the mood and feel of it, just think a couple technical > aspects could be better. Might be more interesting during a storm. Sunrise/Sunset photos can be cliché, and since this sunrise is nothing special it falls into that category. IMHO. > > I think the writing all over the pic, including at the bottom, just > > ruins it. I find it a little strange that people (and not just Doug) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nothing to do with the photo itself and everything to do with the > copyright notice. One might be considered lucky if someone liked their photos enough for them to be stolen. I always beam with pride when I see that someone has taken one of my images to be used as a desktop background, or for use on their website.  SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in the Army. - Dom > > The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting > > of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > increase the dynamic range in a way that would have appeared more natural > and pleasing. You could also decrease the intensity of the flash to make it look less harsh. HDR hasn't been around that long so that everyone knows about it. Then there are those who object to it as fake. : > > The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting : > > of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] : HDR hasn't been around that long so that everyone knows about it. Then : there are those who object to it as fake. ------------------------------------------ Lesson number 2/01/(a) - Anti-creativity... This is a new lesson created especially for those who's only artistic outlet is a digital camera and computer screen. PREAMBLE: This is the theory of anti-creative genius. Basically it's the guidelines for ensuring only your photos are ever considered for merit in a critical analysis.It relies on the standardisation of pictures and that your work should look like everyone else's work. The people well into the beta testing phase of this principal are the people who would foster the creation of ISO standard 200000... Standards for photographic critique. 1. By making all photographs measurable to a known (ISO) standard, dud photos with no merit can quickly be compared to those from your collection which have great merit, being the basis the (ISO) standard was created from. 2. Everything shall be the same, measurable by a known (ISO) standard derived from you idea of perfect and no deviations shall be acceptable. Lighthouses shall all be photographed with a tilt/shift lens, shifted 0.009% vertically and tilted -0.1000.02% in the vertical plane. Obscuring broken railing and graffiti with trees and other obstacles shall be absolutely forbidden as will placing picture elements in the path of bright light to reduce the EV reading. 3. Absolutely no use of creative lighting will be permitted. If you can't see what you are doing, wait for daylight where upon you will not need to light the scene and can proceed to take an ISO 200000 compliant photograph. If there is deep shadows, wait until they are gone but under no circumstances are you to use reflective discs, flash lights or flash guns to compensate for digital cameras not recording detail in black areas. 4. Absolutely no artist interpretation in the form of merged, layered or PhotoShop manipulated images will be tolerated. Forget any idea you might sell your photos, someone else already does that and we don't want to get involved in charges of fraud and forgery just because your image is more (or less) ISO 200000 compliant than the one already making someone else rich and famous. 5. Pounce on any and every opportunity to criticize someone else (anyone else) who has the cheek to suggest they are doing something you are perfectly capable of doing yourself but never do. This includes such absurd suggestions that you may care to de-sleep at the un Godly time of 4:00 AM on Sunday morning after shooting a wedding reception until 10:00 PM the night before, just to take some non-compliant pictures of a derelict lighthouse. 6. Never entertain the idea that whilst driving home after a horror breakfast at McDonalds, you might take the opportunity to stop and walk a mile or two in the midday sun just to take even more non-compliant photos of non-compliant subjects... Where are they? Well, one is right here: http://www.ryadia.com/flyer.htm There's a movie sequence of this boat in action I shot with my Panasonic FZ50 too. As soon as I figure out how to put it on the 'net I'll give you a look at it! Douglas. > Pounce on any and every opportunity to criticize someone else (anyone else) > who has the cheek to suggest they are doing something you are perfectly > capable of doing yourself but never do. This includes such absurd > suggestions that you may care to de-sleep at the un Godly time of 4:00 AM on > Sunday morning after shooting a wedding reception until 10:00 PM the night > before, just to take some non-compliant pictures of a derelict lighthouse. So you had to travel to shoot a wedding and as is your policy charged the happy couple for the room? No problem there. And you took advantage of the situation by getting up early the next morning to capture the sunrise. Makes sense to me .... really. I would've done the same thing. So why did you write this? "I drove less than 150 Klm to "find" this location. I stayed in a nearby motel that night just so I could see this breathtaking sunrise." >> Pounce on any and every opportunity to criticize someone else (anyone else) >> who has the cheek to suggest they are doing something you are perfectly [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >nearby motel that night just so I could see this breathtaking >sunrise." Because he thought the simple truth would have been less interesting than an elaborately crafted fiction? : >> Pounce on any and every opportunity to criticize someone else (anyone else) : >> who has the cheek to suggest they are doing something you are perfectly [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] : Because he thought the simple truth would have been less interesting : than an elaborately crafted fiction? Leaf out of your book, perhaps Tony? >>>> Pounce on any and every opportunity to criticize someone else >>>> (anyone else) who has the cheek to suggest they are doing [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> > Leaf out of your book, perhaps Tony? This is progress, Doug! The first step toward recovery is always acknowledgement of the problem (inyour case, lying). Only 11 steps to go! SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson : > Pounce on any and every opportunity to criticize someone else (anyone else) : > who has the cheek to suggest they are doing something you are perfectly [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : nearby motel that night just so I could see this breathtaking : sunrise." 150k on the M1 is but an hour and half from home and easy driving too. > : So why did you write this? > : > : "I drove less than 150 Klm to "find" this location. I stayed in a > : nearby motel that night just so I could see this breathtaking > : sunrise." > 150k on the M1 is but an hour and half from home and easy driving too. So are we to believe that you chose this night, after shooting a late wedding reception, to then drive the 150 Klm and check into a motel, just so you could get a few hours sleep before getting up at 4:30AM to capture the sunrise? As usual, I ain't buyin what you're sellin. The truth would sound more like, "I was on location and stayed over since the reception ran late. Taking advantage of the situation, I got up early to get this sunrise pic." D-Mac, you'd rather climb a tree to get to tell a lie than to just stand on the ground and tell the truth. It has been said that the truth has the same effect on you than sunlight has on Dracula. Note that I haven't commented on the pic itself, many others have covered that one already. And of course they got the variation on your "I meant to do that" excuse. This time it was, "Yeah, I know that's a bad photo, I was just baiting you." D-Mac: The only professional photographer in the world who intentionally only posts his bad images. He meant to do that! What makes it even more laughable is a bad image with a copyright stamp all over it. As if! > HDR hasn't been around that long so that everyone knows about it. Then > there are those who object to it as fake. It's been around at least as long as Ansel Adams' book "The Negative". SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in the Army. - Dom >> The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting >> of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > increase the dynamic range in a way that would have appeared more natural > and pleasing. I believe you could lasso and brighten the lighthouse in Photoshop....Perhaps that was what he did.....I don't see the distortion....I think the lighthouse was build that way...With spiral stairs near the top.....the distortion can be blamed on the A architect...... >>>The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting >>>of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > near the top.....the distortion can be blamed on the A > architect...... I live not far from this lighthouse and it doesnt look too distorted to me. It isnt a very tall lighthouse, more of a light station. The railing at the top may be a bit more oval than round but not that bad. : >>>The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting : >>>of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : > near the top.....the distortion can be blamed on the A : > architect...... : I live not far from this lighthouse and it doesnt look too distorted : to me. It isnt a very tall lighthouse, more of a light station. The : railing at the top may be a bit more oval than round but not that bad. Ahhh Clarence... You missed to fun these jokers were having. Take another look at the page. You might have to press the refresh button to get it. I distorted the picture I initially posted with a little program from a Frenchman which normally corrects the rectilinear errors wide angle lenses create. I used it to create some! I posted the original for a bit of baiting... These jocks get their jollies rocking when they can pick the stuffing out of someone like me. More fool them, I say! Sorry if you saw it as serious. Thanks for your comment anyway. I just can't resist lighting the flames for these jokers. Hey... Do you do any fishing there? Some guys were pulling in bucket loads of decent size fish on the rocks below the light. Here's me with my fishing gear safely on the boat - 70 miles away! Douglas > I posted the original for a bit of baiting... That's such a cool way of excusing bad pictures. I thought the old "I meant to fall over" excuse was getting a bit stale nowadays. Kudos to Doug for not bending to the times..!! I notice he has also corrected the following faults in the original - well done, Doug!: - the original was badly oversharpened (see below) - the new one is better, although now it is a little soft - the original had some overly bright grass in the foreground (you know, the bit covered in text?), which was a bit of an indicator of fill flash.. Anyway, this is a *really cool* idea - posting 'spot-all-the-flaws' images! I'll have to dig up a few of my bad ones... So thanks for posting this, Douglas. But it's a real pity that your images don't stay put - this would make a good reference, but of course it will be gone soon.. My comments below apply to the original - I have a cached version if anyone wants to see it, just ask... It's quite different from the new one. What a fun trick to play, Doug! Sure fooled all us critics, dincha... (O; OK, here's my attempt at a critique of the ORIGINAL image - I think it was clearly designed to show the "what not to do" of the following cautions: Caution No 1. - AVOID using fill-flash on sunset or sunrise shots, unless you want/don't mind the 'unreal' effect of the unnatural, hard, bluish light. Obviously (well, to most people) a flash is going to look somewhat blue when added to the gold/orange/red light found at sunrise or sunset. Even in the late afternoon/early morning, you need to be careful. Added to this, our brain is very good at knowing what these scenes 'should' look like - we instinctively know how much light might be reasonably expected on the front of objects in such a scene. As has been mentioned by many others the lighthouse looks overly bright, and possibly a little bluish - certainly the foreground grass (now deleted) looked a very odd colour - perhaps it is the drought... Then of course there is the telltale increase in light in the foreground (now deleted). By the way, the lettering was a good idea to try to cover the problem, but it didn't quite work. Some real solutions include - just live with the reality of the scene - use PS techniques to bring up a little detail in the silhouettes - use HDR (see below) - use a yellow gel/filter/cellophane over your flash head - bounce the flash off something big and yellowish... anyone got any others? If all this fails and the scene still doesn't look right, just toss it and move on, I reckon. For me, this wouldn't be a keeper. Of course, there *could* be a source of light other than flash that is doing the illumination. But this will usually be tungsten (yellowish) light and so will not look as out-of-place. The difference between flash and incandescent lighting is usually easy to spot... Interestingly in the past this same person has attempted (unsuccessfully) to suggest otherwise on his famous "Pelicans at Amity Point" image - I refer to this discussion: http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/ddd 49783c0ebf018 There, Doug claimed he *didn't* use flash and that the bluish foreground light in that image (now withdrawn of course) was from external sources... But unfortunately for Doug, a person who knows that beach pointed out that there is *no* such lighting there. I have since verified this myself. Not that I wish to suggest Doug lies - he ... er ... just gets a little confused sometimes..? Caution No 2. - DON'T overdo HDR - HDR might have been a better solution here, but similarly you must be very subtle - it is painfully easy to end up with a result that looks like Doug's image, where the light balance looks unnatural or 'flattened'. But at least you could mask out the foreground grass (now deleted) so it wouldn't be so distracting... (O; Caution No 3. - DON'T oversharpen. Doug's ORIGINAL image also showed one of the less known but interesting effects caused by poor sharpening technique. There were tiny overbright points of light in the silhouetted foliage. These points looked very odd because they were *much* brighter than the local background.. Of course that is because sharpening exaggerates contrast at edges by brightening the lighter pixels - so (depending on your usm settings) if the bright detail is small, you can get a little false USM-induced supernova... (O; So, very careful use of the sharpening tool is required where you have very fine high contrast details. If you really must overdo the sharpening, try using masks/layers to fix the bits where it goes wrong (if you need to know how, just ask - even Douglas should know this..) ... I do wish Douglas would put the original back up - some folks could learn a thing or two from all those deliberate mistakes he made. (O; Anyway, thanks again, Douglas - I hope we have all learned something about what *not* to do - I know I did... (O; > I posted the original for a bit of baiting... Then you're the first photographer I've met who posts crap /on purpose/. Somehow I find that hard to believe. Look, I'm not saying my photos are better than yours - I suck as a photographer - but I'm not posting ordinary snaps every day and claiming to be the bomb digity super-pro that you claim to be. You should either A. learn to see beyond the ordinary, or B. get a life. (or both). I suggest some meditation to bring your blood pressure down a few notches and to learn to be at peace before pressing the shutter release. SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in the Army. - Dom > Douglas. wrote: > I posted the original for a bit of baiting... These jocks get their > jollies rocking when they can pick the stuffing out of someone like > me. More fool them, I say! Sorry if you saw it as serious. Thanks > for your comment anyway. I just can't resist lighting the flames for > these jokers. Nice spin after-the-fact, but it's not convincing. This, and your little lesson about creativity elsewhere in the thread is a clear indicator why you thought mediocre work was exceptional... you're too thin-skinned to accept and profit from legitimate constructive criticism and view it as a personal attack. Get over yourself, you're not special enough to warrant a grand conspiracy. The new version is better, btw. "Correcting" the lighthouse perspective helped, but removing the unnecessary foreground helped the most, IMHO. :> Douglas. wrote: : > I posted the original for a bit of baiting... These jocks get their [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : perspective helped, but removing the unnecessary foreground helped the : most, IMHO. -------------------- If you followed the thread (hard, I know) you'd read at the front that my intention was to make this picture a panorama. Therefore either the foreground or the sky had to be expendable. Rocket science, I know but pay attention and you'll get the gist of the thing. "Flo's tools" from France (not free) is a beautiful set of plugins for Photoshop to correct perspective errors. REMEMBER THAT THREAD? - You get a better perspective for a portrait when you use a 70mm or longer lens? Man did you lot of jerks get off on that one? Here you go now... Saying exactly what started that thread. Talk about brave! I think I'll get it going again mate, citing you as the authorities source! ROTFL. Well anyway... I used his stuff to invoke a perspective error in the first picture and I left the foreground in place... You all took it hook, line and sinker. If you actually paid attention, you would have figured out the plot but instead, you lost it entirely... Good one mate! Oh yeah... How many w.nkers claiming superiority beat up on me the "Perspective of a Portrait" issue? Some people simply can't comprehend the perspective of a lens doesn't change but the perspective of a photograph can, as this picture demonstrates. It's the difference between art and mechanics. Do you have a notion for either Dave? As for constructive criticism... So far, from the plethora of people who see it their duty to post a bad or less than flattering opinion about my pictures, only one or two have actually been constructive. Everyone else (you included) have been getting some sort of euphoria out of attacking someone they secretly admire, with comments ranging from subliminal sarcasm to outright defamation. Even to the point of one of you getting so jealous as to become a common criminal trying to hack eBay for my password. I should be flattered. Why am I not? http://www.annika.com contains the evidence of his foul deeds. Nice method he's got of diverting attention from his criminal activities... Just turn the heat up on me while he goes about his disgusting attacks on my clients and me personally. How good are you to follow blindly in his wake? Apart from anything else mate. These posts are priming the search engines at absolutely no cost to me. If enduring all your distorted wit gets my web sites to a position where I can load my sites into search engines and there are hundreds and hundreds of qualified links to it from all those so called "forums" who leach off Usenet already in place... They will rate out of obscurity into the top 20 or 30 within weeks instead of cost me $600 plus a month to get them there. Go at it all you what 'DAVE©'. At the end of the day all you're doing is playing the game my way. How's it feel to me manipulated? Douglas Qualified Photographer, Internationally recognized Wedding Photographer, http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com -- Cheers, big ears! > Douglas > Qualified Photographer, > Internationally recognized Wedding Photographer, > http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com I think you'd reduce a lot of the heat if you'd simply change your sig to something a bit less pompous. Of course you'd have to also change a bit of your other constant blathering about your own greatness, too. It occurs to me, however, that if you are truly "internationally recognized"...then you shouldn't need to inform us of that...since surely we've heard of you, right? Note the difference in my sig. No claims, no games. Just a link and an indication that there are images, with the implication that some are decent, and some are snapshots. Your photos...with their international prowess...should speak for itself, I should think. Actually they do...just not always quite as positively as you assume. If you don't make the claim...you don't take the blame. :) If you keep yourself humble...we forgive when you stumble. Hey! I just made that up! ...Jesse Jackson's got nothin' on me, mate! Really true, though, Doug. Meant in seriousness...even if a little goofy. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Douglas. wrote: > :> Douglas. wrote: > : > I posted the original for a bit of baiting... These jocks get [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Internationally recognized Wedding Photographer, > http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com I feel sorry for you. >: >>>The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting >: >>>of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Douglas Sure ! You used a program to create soime distortion so yu could poke fun at us... Wow,how clever of you !. Seems that the explanation come way to far after the cart... But whatever you pros use to explain bad photography is okay, I guess. That is until the viewer sees that work is just plain bad... Thumper >>>>>> The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The >>>>>> lighting of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > whatever you pros use to explain bad photography is okay, I guess. > That is until the viewer sees that work is just plain bad... Douglas is still under impression that none of us were ever in the 3rd grade...where you learn to see through silly excuses like, "I meant to do that..." after someone trips and falls. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Thumper the cat wrote: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:59:43 GMT, "Douglas." [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > whatever you pros use to explain bad photography is okay, I guess. > That is until the viewer sees that work is just plain bad... First off, I don't buy for one second that Douglas was "tricking" everybody here as he claims. But, just for the sake of conversation, let's presume that he was. He takes a supposedly good photo... disfigures it in some subtle way... then sits back and waits for critiques so he can show what idiots the rest of us are. Hmmmm, ok. Problem is, everybody critiques in a way that he later says is what his original picture looked like and how he... the apparent grand master of all things photographic... feels it should be. End result is that all he's really done is confirm, according to his own standards, that everybody here is, in fact, knowledgable and quite competent in photographic technique and assessment. "TheDave©" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:_qiMh.36710: End result is that all he's really done is confirm, according to his : own standards, that everybody here is, in fact, knowledgable and quite : competent in photographic technique and assessment. Is that your best joke for the day Dave? Come-on, you can do better. : >: >>>The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting : >: >>>of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] : : Thumper Yes Bret. > : Sure ! You used a program to create soime distortion so yu could poke > : fun at us... Wow,how clever of you !. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes Bret. Rats! Busted again! You got me. Yeah, I'm really Thumper .... and Helen too, of course. I'm also Mark Morgan, Mark Thomas, Tony Polson (had you goin on that Paris Match thing didn't I?), and a few others. William Graham? Me. Beach Bum? Me. Scott W? Me, again. But I am NOT Alan Browne! Hell, D-Mac, I'm everywhere you look. I've been more places than Johnny Cash. I'm beyond your peripheral vision, so you might wanna turn your head. My real name is Pudentame. Ask me again and I'll tell you the same. Oops, gotta go .... here comes Nurse Ratchet! > Oops, gotta go .... here comes Nurse Ratchet! :-) The only chuckle I've had out of this whole sordid affair. Signature-Mike > > : Sure ! You used a program to create soime distortion so yu could poke > > : fun at us... Wow,how clever of you !. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Oops, gotta go .... here comes Nurse Ratchet! Ooooh I hate her! The only character I have every wanted to put my hands through the tv screen and choke like Jack Nicolson did. >> : Sure ! You used a program to create soime distortion so yu could poke >> : fun at us... Wow,how clever of you !. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Yeah, I'm really Thumper .... and Helen too, of course. >I'm also Mark Morgan, Mark Thomas, Tony Polson But aren't you Spartacus? > >> : Sure ! You used a program to create soime distortion so yu could poke > >> : fun at us... Wow,how clever of you !. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > But aren't you Spartacus? Yep! And he's Tiger Woods....which explains a lot! ;-) Helen >> : Sure ! You used a program to create soime distortion so yu could poke >> : fun at us... Wow,how clever of you !. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Oops, gotta go .... here comes Nurse Ratchet! Jeez Bret; You had to go and use a literary reference. Douglas will get lost on that one... By the way Dougie, I'm from Texas. Bret is from Tennessee. Split personalities are tough tomaintain at that distance... But a lot of us can obviously spot a really, really bad photographer... Thumper Larry B > >Hell, D-Mac, I'm everywhere you look. > >I've been more places than Johnny Cash. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You had to go and use a literary reference. Douglas will get lost > on that one... Not only a literary reference, but an Ani DiFranco lyric as well. >>>>The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting >>>>of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > me. It isnt a very tall lighthouse, more of a light station. The railing > at the top may be a bit more oval than round but not that bad. Well, you should go there and take a photo of it from approximately the same place with your best lens. Then post it so we can compare it's "distortion" with that of this photograph.....I have seen lots of buildings that look distorted when viewed from one particular angle.....I'm not sure why this is, but I suspect it's because the mind expects to see something else other than what it does see, and this gives rise to the idea of distortion..... > One might be considered lucky if someone liked their photos enough for them > to be stolen. I always beam with pride when I see that someone has taken > one of my images to be used as a desktop background, or for use on their > website. I wouldn't mind my photos being used as a desktop wallpaper. I've given permission for that on occasion when I was asked. I do consider it poor manners to do so without asking. Someone using my images for their website should compensate me. That compensation might be no more than appropriate credit for the image for a non-commercial personal website, but I'd be damned put out to have someone take and distort my images for the purpose of libel. > The distortion doesn't bother me as much as it does some. The lighting > of the lighthouse makes the whole thing look unnatural, though. The [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Overall, I like the mood and feel of it, just think a couple technical > aspects could be better. I think a shift of the POV a little to the right might have helped as well; move the sun out from behind that plant, and maybe bury that little stand, whatever it is, in the shadow of the plant. Maybe even move entirely to the other side of the lighthouse. I'd be interested to see what the scene looked like earlier as well, perhaps with the sun still below the horizon lighting the clouds from below. The main thing I see is it's a location that's "only 150 mi (km?) away", so, if it was in my neck of the woods, I'd probably keep an eye out on the weather and go back again and again, trying to improve my take each time. It'd give a chance to try masking off any fill flash to where it only lights the lighthouse itself. >> I think the writing all over the pic, including at the bottom, just >> ruins it. I find it a little strange that people (and not just Doug) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nothing to do with the photo itself and everything to do with the > copyright notice. I agree, but I understand the heavy watermark is a result of his dispute with Bret about images taken and misused. : >I find the pic suffers from distortion....the lighthouse, : [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : Cheers, : DuncanC One bad apple spoils a whole crate of them. One image thief, results in all the honest people on the Internet needing to put up with measures taken to thwart the thieving swine next time. Sorry Duncan but when you do actually get your pbase account, you'll find exactly the same situation at some time or another. DON'T EVER post your best images if you intend down the track to try and sell them. DON'T EVER post anything you haven't distorted or branded (both is best) when you can sell the image. Don't ever expect to see any of my really good photos on the Internet. You'll have to come to one of my exhibitions to see them. The next is being held in June. If you live close to Brisbane, put your name down for an invite. Douglas >Sorry Duncan but when you do actually get your pbase account, you'll find >exactly the same situation at some time or another. Yes I understand. And I understand your special circumstances. I'm just trying to decide if I would care so much that I would wreck the experience of viewing the picture when providing that experience is the main reason for posting it in the first place. I don't like to put myself into the same category as the RIAA who insists that they are losing billions by people copying and listening to songs for which they would never have paid. So what if people put my images on their web site. It's happened. So what if people use my photos for their desktops. So what if someone criticizes my photos. I might improve. And if someone steals an 800x600 approximation of a photo of mine and makes money from it, maybe I should talk to them. I might learn something about marketing. I have enough to worry about with real customers and real money, without worrying about imaginary money. But, of course, I still don't have the PBase account. Cheers, DuncanC PS I live in Maine, the most distant part of the US from Brisbane. Not that I wouldn't like to visit some day. > Don't ever expect to see any of my really good photos on the Internet. oh I don't ever expect to see 'really good photos' from you, so no danger there! Plus, you keep telling us you can't put photos on the internet. [shrug] : > Don't ever expect to see any of my really good photos on the Internet. : : oh I don't ever expect to see 'really good photos' from you, so no : danger there! Plus, you keep telling us you can't put photos on the : internet. [shrug] Is this the latest news flash from Andrew Hennell, famous SA newspaper publisher? What ever happened to your photos Andrew? Can you give us the URL again? I've misplaced or can't find one. You do post you pics for critique, don't you? Douglas > Is this the latest news flash from Andrew Hennell, famous SA newspaper > publisher? I'm a newspaper publisher now? Fwoar! Someone forgot to tell me. Perhaps I do like your version of reality! LOL. Please Douglas, tell me how you invented this one :) > What ever happened to your photos Andrew? They're online, they're here on my computer, they're printed and they're being sent to clients. > Can you give us the URL again? No, as I don't think I ever gave it to you in the first place. > I've misplaced or can't find one. Poor you > You do post you pics for critique, don't you? Not really, no. Should I ever feel so insecure as to want to compare with you, I'll let you know. : > Is this the latest news flash from Andrew Hennell, famous SA newspaper : > publisher? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] : Not really, no. Should I ever feel so insecure as to want to compare : with you, I'll let you know. So Andrew... You feel more comfortable taking the piss out of others, than risking that someone might do the same to you, do you? There's a description for people like you... Like your Photos... Missing at the moment. Douglas > : > Is this the latest news flash from Andrew Hennell, famous SA newspaper > : > publisher? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > risking that someone might do the same to you, do you? There's a description > for people like you... Like your Photos... Missing at the moment. I take the piss out of you, not your photos. Photography is an art, and very subjective. My photos aren't missing, and several are available for viewing. [shrug] I'm more interested how you think I'm a "newspaper publisher". and in SA too, a state I've only visited twice in my life! Answer that, I'll send you a photo for you to educate me about :) : > : > Is this the latest news flash from Andrew Hennell, famous SA newspaper : > : > publisher? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] : too, a state I've only visited twice in my life! Answer that, I'll send : you a photo for you to educate me about :) Misunderstanding are a part of this group, aren't they? That'd be good, sending me a photo. Someone (besides me) not frightened to identify himself. Change is good mate. Pictures are better. I look forward to you 'outing' yourself. Then there'll be two of us for the trolls. Of course you'll have give up on your crap postings but you'll get to respond to fuckwits trying to take the Mickey out of you while they get their rocks off. Do that Andrew. It'll be change from your usual form. > Misunderstanding are a part of this group, aren't they? > That'd be good, sending me a photo. Someone (besides me) not frightened to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Do that Andrew. It'll be change from your usual form. Since when have I ever been frightened to identify myself? Considering I use my real name here, and only my real name, I'm hardly able to "out" myself. I must admit, however, to having a laugh when you say you're not frightened to identify yourself - how many names do you post under? There's nothing for me to change. If you think I'd in any way associate with you then you're more deluded than I originally thought. Funny how nobody takes the mickey out of me, just you. [shrug] As you're so keen on landscape photography, I'll post one you can go and have a whinge about. Others have before you, and I've taken their constructive comments onboard. I doubt you have any to offer, but surprise us. www.ruralevents.com.au/sheep.jpg >> Misunderstanding are a part of this group, aren't they? >> That'd be good, sending me a photo. Someone (besides me) not frightened [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > constructive comments onboard. I doubt you have any to offer, but > surprise us. www.ruralevents.com.au/sheep.jpg Oh man the horizon isn't even straight. ;-) >>>Misunderstanding are a part of this group, aren't they? >>>That'd be good, sending me a photo. Someone (besides me) not frightened [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Oh man the horizon isn't even straight. ;-) And that tree got in the way - you could have seen more sheep! > Oh man the horizon isn't even straight. ;-) <sarcasm> No no no, the internet didn't represent the photograph properly - you can't put photographs on the internet, only images - and because of the way the internet works it only appears that the horizon isn't straight. you're a troll! I shall remove that image immediately so you can't hurt my feelings any more! </sarcasm> > Oh man the horizon isn't even straight. ;-) Actually, I get quite bored with horizontal horizons where they're not natural. The camera was perfectly level, the land was sloping away to the right, the hill was sloping away to the right - why must everything be level? :) But - my boredom with the horizontal does NOT extend to Doug's errr... 'interesting' angles he finds for things that should be horizontal, such as ocean horizons :) > > Oh man the horizon isn't even straight. ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 'interesting' angles he finds for things that should be horizontal, such > as ocean horizons :) May I offer a little support, Andrew - I really like that shot - slightly offbeat, and well-seen. But further, like you I am a little surprised that an 'expert' or two here is criticising your 'horizon', when there is none... There is clearly no level, flat horizon, nor is there any water with reflections, in fact the only vague clue is the fence which is almost certainly on a slope. Even the trees are relatively unhelpful, so it is more of an artistic choice - in this case, if the image is representing reality it may well be dead right... : > Misunderstanding are a part of this group, aren't they? : > That'd be good, sending me a photo. Someone (besides me) not frightened to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] : constructive comments onboard. I doubt you have any to offer, but : surprise us. www.ruralevents.com.au/sheep.jpg Excellent stuff Andrew... Now if you just tilt the camera a little down on the left, you'll straighten the horizon mate! Great work Andrew. Keep it up mate. Yeah... I might have confused earlier posts from you relating to event insurance with my former colleagues at Rural Press and got the newspaper thing wrong... Fits the theme of this group, don't you think? Douglas > Excellent stuff Andrew... Now if you just tilt the camera a little down on > the left, you'll straighten the horizon mate! Great work Andrew. Keep it up > mate. Yeah... I might have confused earlier posts from you relating to event > insurance with my former colleagues at Rural Press and got the newspaper > thing wrong... Fits the theme of this group, don't you think? I was editor of a Rural Press publication for a while, but not publisher. Although I'm not sure I ever mentioned that here, nor needed to. I think inaccuracies fit the theme of you, more than the group - don't you think? : > Excellent stuff Andrew... Now if you just tilt the camera a little down on : > the left, you'll straighten the horizon mate! Great work Andrew. Keep it up [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : I think inaccuracies fit the theme of you, more than the group - don't : you think? Not quite Andrew. You lied to me. I know more about you than you think yet you choose to try and make me look stupid by propagating the lie that you didn't have anything to do with publishing. Editor is close enough... Not a nice person at all , are you? Douglas > Not quite Andrew. You lied to me. > I know more about you than you think yet you choose to try and make me look > stupid by propagating the lie that you didn't have anything to do with > publishing. Editor is close enough... Not a nice person at all , are you? Bwahahaha oh you're seeing a whole team of shrinks. aren't you? I did not lie, and I'd like you to substantiate where you believe I did. The publisher is Rural Press Ltd. There was a whole chain of senior staff between me and the 'publisher' of the publication. This may not sit well with your version of reality, but it is how it is. Apology expected. >>Not quite Andrew. You lied to me. >>I know more about you than you think yet you choose to try and make me look [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This may not sit well with your version of reality, but it is how it is. > Apology expected. Doug has not grasped that concept yet - reality! > I know more about you than you think In your world, you probably do. In the real world, in which the rest of us live - no you don't. Simple distinction, but probably escapes you. Cheers, Andrew : > I know more about you than you think : [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : Cheers, : Andrew The thing that amuses me and amazes me about people like you Andrew is that if I'm such a pain in the arse to you... Why even bother post your useless rubbish in the first place? > You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring landscape > Photos like this! [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Wedding Photographer > http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com It's a pretty scene. Next time, back up and use a little more extension so you're lighthouse won't look so warped. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring landscape >> Photos like this! [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It's a pretty scene. Next time, back up and use a little more extension > so you're lighthouse won't look so warped. What I was wondering is why hide the sun behind the bushes, looks wrong. : >> You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring landscape : >> Photos like this! [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] : : What I was wondering is why hide the sun behind the bushes, looks wrong. EV 10, sun EV 2 shadow. Use the bush and halve the difference. >>> You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring >>> landscape Photos like this! [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > What I was wondering is why hide the sun behind the bushes, looks > wrong. I guess that doesn't bother me. It's also a way of dealing with a comparatively bright element in an otherwise dark scene. I kinda like it, actually. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>> You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring >>>> landscape Photos like this! [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > comparatively bright element in an otherwise dark scene. I kinda like it, > actually. To each their own I guess, I usually try to include the sun in my sunset and sunrise shots and thought that this looked like a good opportunity for that. : > You really have to get up early in the morning to get boring landscape : > Photos like this! [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] : It's a pretty scene. Next time, back up and use a little more extension so : you're lighthouse won't look so warped. Back up? As in fall off the narrow cliff top it's perched on? 11mm lens used on this one and I could have made excellent use of a swing lens camera. Something I'll look seriously at buying to improve these sort of shots into an area where digital simply can't compete. The only point available anywhere near ground level was a small mound I positioned the tripod on. Anything further away would have meant further down. I guess it's easy to be critical when it isn't you doing the photography. The reason for the foreground is pretty simple. It's destined for a Panorama print. This is the full frame shot. I won't be using this particular photograph for the final print but a similar one and it will have 15% of the lower portion cropped off. > Back up? As in fall off the narrow cliff top it's perched on? > 11mm lens used on this one and I could have made excellent use of a swing > lens camera. Something I'll look seriously at buying to improve these sort > of shots into an area where digital simply can't compete. "digital" has nothing to do with anything in this case. You can easily buy a digital back to go with that swing lens box. Many effects, such as perspective distortion, can be easily corrected in the dark room (wet or digital). So I fail to see why you constantly whine about digital cameras. Maybe you're just pissed cause you can't afford one. I for one got sick of burning so much money on film and related supplies, as well as the pain in the butt work required to get a decent scan just to put a snapshot up on my web site. SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in the Army. - Dom : > Back up? As in fall off the narrow cliff top it's perched on? : > 11mm lens used on this one and I could have made excellent use of a swing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : well as the pain in the butt work required to get a decent scan just to put : a snapshot up on my web site. Money is never a consideration when I buy anything, cameras included. Maybe it's the fact Digital cameras have an immediate start and end to their dynamic range? Maybe it's the fact that to get any detail at all in the shadow areas of the lighthouse pic, would produce a horrible noise pattern in those shadows that film would not produce? Or maybe it's the fact that digital cameras are responsible for every jerk with a spare Grand or two thinking if they buy a digital camera it qualifies them to know everything about Photography? My film time goes back many decades. In the '70s and '80s my Lab made "real" unsharp masks for some of the finest Cibachrome prints ever made. You or anyone else can criticize my photographs... Criticizing my methods and knowledge of processes related to processing photographs is an area you simply don't know enough about the take me on. It's really nice when someone like Andrew Hennell who is constant pain in the arse to me with his sarcastic barbs intended to follow in the footsteps of another idiot, proves what I said in Paragraph 2 by posting his best landscape ...with a crooked horizon. Digital cameras are very convenient devices. They've been responsible for a huge surge in photography as a hobby and changed the industry of Photography forever. What they can't do - at any cost level - and probably never will, is rival film in areas where film is still the only medium able to produce results. If digital images ever reach the point where they can produce detail in shadow areas with no increase in noise and other unacceptable faults, I might change my mind. As it is, Film is the only medium I have ever used that can produce a beautiful print from a scene with severely under exposed areas and not produce a grain pattern significantly different to any other part of the scene. So to answer your question: When digital images can rival film quality in areas I make a living from, I'll shut up about their image faults and inability to render detail at the far ends of their dynamic range. Until then, if it peeves you so much, use the "message rules" to filter my posts out... There'll still be one or two for you read now and then. http://www.annika.com History of an image thief http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com beautiful Wedding portraits http://www.canvasphotos.com.au Incredibly beautiful canvas prints -- Have a nice day, Douglas > It's really nice when someone like Andrew Hennell who is constant pain in > the arse to me with his sarcastic barbs intended to follow in the footsteps > of another idiot, proves what I said in Paragraph 2 by posting his best > landscape ...with a crooked horizon. I forgive nature for not being flat, for a hill actually sloping. There was no level horizon in that photo, because nature did not provide one. Simple really. Unlike your ocean shots! And fwiw, it was far from my "best landscape" : > It's really nice when someone like Andrew Hennell who is constant pain in : > the arse to me with his sarcastic barbs intended to follow in the footsteps [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : : And fwiw, it was far from my "best landscape" Why Andrew, if my comment has no effect on you, do you feel the need to justify your picture? FWIW the sheep's feet are the real give away! > Why Andrew, if my comment has no effect on you, do you feel the need to > justify your picture? FWIW the sheep's feet are the real give away! just addressing your delusions. And what, aren't sheep allowed to be standing on a slope? >> It's really nice when someone like Andrew Hennell who is constant pain in >> the arse to me with his sarcastic barbs intended to follow in the footsteps [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And fwiw, it was far from my "best landscape" Hi, I have noticed a few ppl in this thread offering opinions on landscape pics. Some of the stuff mentioned, I would never be able to pick myself, so, I was wondering if I could get some opinions/advice on a couple of landscape pics I have taken. www.members.optusnet.com.au/mjwyllie/landscape.htm These pics have been cropped as there was a lot of bad stuff around the outers. The day was overcast with the sun popping out here & there, so there was not a lot of brightness to the pics. I have made a few adjustments with PSP-11 & think they look ok. If anyone could take the time to have a look, I would be interested in what you think! Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< : >> It's really nice when someone like Andrew Hennell who is constant pain in : >> the arse to me with his sarcastic barbs intended to follow in the footsteps [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] : If anyone could take the time to have a look, I would be interested in : what you think! The real issue with digital camera is shadows. Sure they blow highlights early but they also ruin otherwise really good photo by 'blocking' the shadows early too. Reducing the contrast doesn't do much. Paint Shop Pro (I'm not familiar with it) may have a function to lift the contrast out of deep black into the range where it doesn't look black. In Photoshop elements it's called "Fill Flash". See if you can find it, eh? Douglas > Hi, I have noticed a few ppl in this thread offering opinions on > landscape pics. Some of the stuff mentioned, I would never be able to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > >>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< Hi, MJ. They are nice pic's, but both suffer from a couple of issues, imo. First, they both have lots of (too much) stuff to look at - that *can* be a good thing, but for me both of these shots made my eye wander a bit aimlessly, looking for something - a theme, an interesting focal point... But it wasn't quite there. Sometimes it is just the composition and leading lines that will do the trick - some images just 'work'. For the first one in particular, I found the problem was made worse by what I would call an 'uncomfortable' crop. The more interesting trees seem to be cut off at the tops, and the one that juts into the left side is very distracting and has to go! I think I like the bottom one better, as it has more of a focus towards the centre and leading lines that help keep your eye in the picture. However.. that sky?? It probably was interesting to the eye, but in the image it has just turned to a whitish blare at the top. Less sky (and less brightness/more colour in it) would have helped. The wire across the bottom corner is distracting, and the dam/ lake is a little too close to the bottom. All 'in my opinion', naturally - I'll be interested to hear others. Frankly, I find Douglas' comments to be very puzzling (as usual). These images are quite well balanced as far as highlights and shadows go (except for that sky!) I think Douglas has screen calibration issues or maybe uses a cheap LCD..? I would not criticise your post-processing in that regard - so keep it up. >> Hi, I have noticed a few ppl in this thread offering opinions on >> landscape pics. Some of the stuff mentioned, I would never be able to [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > I would not criticise your post-processing in that regard - so keep it > up. Hi Mark, thanks for your comments! Both these pics have a lot cropped off them. I guess with the first one, I was afraid that there would be nothing left. The road & little bridge were my focal point, so I can see what you mean about the jutting tree on the left. As for the tree tops, I could not crop any further up. The 2nd pic. I agree, the sky is sh.t. There was no blue in it on the day, but I think the adjustments I made to the final image worsened it.I cropped high to include the tree on the top of the hill & low to get all of the dam. I am pretty new to adjusting images, so have not tried removing or brushing over objects yet. Thanks again for taking the time to look & reply, the 2 original pics were close to throw-aways, but after seeing Andrew Hennell's pic the other day, I realised that not everything has to be pin sharp & highly detailed to be appreciated & decided to salvage something out them! Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< > www.members.optusnet.com.au/mjwyllie/landscape.htm > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If anyone could take the time to have a look, I would be interested in > what you think! Both are quite easy to look at. I would have liked the foreground cropped by lifting the camera to include more tree tops. this would remove the bulls eye of the bridge and gate, plus allow the road to lead through the picture, at present takes you centrally through the image. Needed more saturation in post processing to compensate for the flat light. your second pic must have been a struggle to get whats there. The power line needed to be cloned out and I'm not keen on the houses in a rural landscape. What would happen if you cloned trees over the houses? I think it tells a story and in years to come, a comparison would be in order. r >> www.members.optusnet.com.au/mjwyllie/landscape.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > r Thanks Rob. As you will gather from my reply to Mark, both of these images had a lot cropped off them just to make them acceptable! I will definitely start experimenting with cloning etc to alter images, but for now my knowledge only extends to minor adjustments/enhancements. I can see what you & Mark mean about the 1st pic, unfortunately I couldn't get anymore tree-top in, but if I had've cropped a bit more off the left hand side, the road would be the picture! With the 2nd pic, apart from the sky & the power line, I was pretty happy with whats in it. I liked the idea of "look whats over your back fence" with the houses, or on the flip side, "suburbia is creeping in". Thanks again guys, your comments will help me get things into perspective! Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message