Gallery: LandscapePosted March 30, 20051,958 views13 comments
Loch na h-Achlaise in the Scottish Highlands, UK
EOS 1DS MK2 17 - 40mm at 17mm ISO 50/L 1/5th @ f18
Comments
13 comments
Comment posted by Brent Stovall on March 30, 2005 at 7:54 AM
A beautiful view. I take it that is ice around the rocks.
B.
Registered on December 6, 2004, 54 Posts, 568 Comments
Comment posted by George Hall, Jr on March 30, 2005 at 7:59 AM
Beautiful image. The sky and clouds seem darker in the sky than in the reflection. I like the rocks and grasses in the FG. Nice comp.
Registered on July 11, 2004, 283 Posts, 2395 Comments
Comment posted by Prashant Khapane on March 30, 2005 at 8:10 AM
really beautiful image.
I wonder why you have 8 posts and only 7 coments. Many people can learn from the coments you give, including myself!
Registered on November 1, 2003, 492 Posts, 4580 Comments
Comment posted by Rob Sutherland on March 30, 2005 at 8:39 AM
Absolutely stunning! I wish I had it in me to get out early in the morning!!!
Registered on September 1, 2004, 50 Posts, 111 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Hudon on March 30, 2005 at 10:54 AM
Beautiful!
Registered on November 1, 2003, 315 Posts, 2246 Comments
Comment posted by Dan Baumbach on March 30, 2005 at 11:05 AM
Stunning.
- Dan.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 473 Posts, 7980 Comments
Comment posted by Guy Tal on March 30, 2005 at 11:16 AM
Beautiful morning glow. I love the combination of warm and cool tones in the frame. I think this could use just a bit of CCW rotation.
How would one pronounce the name of this place?
Guy
Registered on November 1, 2003, 566 Posts, 15507 Comments
Comment posted by Juza on March 30, 2005 at 12:17 PM
Awesome...Kudos Simon!
Registered on November 1, 2003, 374 Posts, 10466 Comments
Comment posted by Simon Booth on March 30, 2005 at 12:54 PM
Pronounced - Lock na-claise.
Regards
Simon
Registered on January 20, 2005, 18 Posts, 18 Comments
Comment posted by Jess Lee on March 30, 2005 at 4:45 PM
Outstanding color tones!
well done
Registered on November 1, 2003, 114 Posts, 929 Comments
Comment posted by Leigh Perry on March 31, 2005 at 7:03 AM
Nice crisp colours, particularly on the water. The dark sky looks is incongruous though, and gives the otherwise appealing shot a decidely 'fake' look.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 21 Posts, 116 Comments
Comment posted by Simon Booth on March 31, 2005 at 11:11 AM
It would appear that since the age of digital manipulation, rightly or wrongly, many photographers' have become increasingly suspicious of any image put in front of them.
The sky in this shot is exactly as it appears on the original RAW file. The only work that I have done is use a fairly new but effective technique designed to illiminate the need to use ND filters in front of the lens, but the results are exactly the same. The image was processed twice - One original, and a second - slightly lighter to bring detail into the foreground. The second was layered over the original, and then the over exposed sky (top third of the frame) removed to reveal the original sky behind. Basically, no ND filters were used on site. On reflection, a third image could have been processed for the mid tones, and then the lighter middle part of the sky darkened. But to be honest, I’d rather not spend hour in front of the PC.
In reality, if you were to observe the afterglow in the sky after the sun had set on a clear evening, the tones along the horizon are never constant. This I believe is what has happened here, but with the reflected light coming off the distant mountains instead of the sun.
Regards
Simon Booth
Registered on January 20, 2005, 18 Posts, 18 Comments
Comment posted by Leigh Perry on March 31, 2005 at 5:54 PM
Simon, to clarify... the fault that I see is that the sky is darker than its reflection in the water. This is a state of affairs that (as far as I know) is impossible in the natural world, but can occur in photographs when grads are used or the image is post-processed for exposure control. (The same condition exists for the mountains.)
Whether this fault occurs through grad filter or exposure blending or excessive dodging / burning doesn't make a lot of difference -- it's still an artifice. I find the photograph very appealing, as do the rest of the posters. With a correction to the dark sky, I feel it would look more natural and even more appealing.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 21 Posts, 116 Comments
Comments
13 commentsB.
I wonder why you have 8 posts and only 7 coments. Many people can learn from the coments you give, including myself!
- Dan.
How would one pronounce the name of this place?
Guy
Regards
Simon
well done
The sky in this shot is exactly as it appears on the original RAW file. The only work that I have done is use a fairly new but effective technique designed to illiminate the need to use ND filters in front of the lens, but the results are exactly the same. The image was processed twice - One original, and a second - slightly lighter to bring detail into the foreground. The second was layered over the original, and then the over exposed sky (top third of the frame) removed to reveal the original sky behind. Basically, no ND filters were used on site. On reflection, a third image could have been processed for the mid tones, and then the lighter middle part of the sky darkened. But to be honest, I’d rather not spend hour in front of the PC.
In reality, if you were to observe the afterglow in the sky after the sun had set on a clear evening, the tones along the horizon are never constant. This I believe is what has happened here, but with the reflected light coming off the distant mountains instead of the sun.
Regards
Simon Booth
Whether this fault occurs through grad filter or exposure blending or excessive dodging / burning doesn't make a lot of difference -- it's still an artifice. I find the photograph very appealing, as do the rest of the posters. With a correction to the dark sky, I feel it would look more natural and even more appealing.