Posted by Paul Inglis on October 3, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I’ve not been around much but as autumn is here I’ll have more time on my hands again (just renewed my subscription for three years). I know landscapes aren’t the thing here on UKNP but feel free to let me know what you think nonetheless.
I didn’t take many images but this one I like the best. Other images can be seen on my blog entitled Glen Helen (aka Rhenass Glen), Isle of Man. Let me know which you prefer and why?
Body: D3X
Lens: Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor
Filter: B+W Neural Density Filter (1.8) 101 SH 77mm
Techs: f/16, 30 sec, 50mm, ISO 100
FULL FRAME, curves, levels, resize for web sharpen
I'm not really qualified to comment on landscapes Paul as mine are usually c--p but this one doesn't really work for me. For me there seems to be a lack of detail and, dare I say it, the image looks a bit soft on my monitor.
Robert
Posted by Duncan Armour on October 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM
The images look a tad flat, maybe play with the curves. From your website I prefer the first and last image rather than this one as both of those have a stronger diagonal line from the water which is more dynamic. (I'd crop the first one at the bottom though.)
Hope that helps a little. Also not fond of the bold copyright message. Given where you've placed it I could clone it out in seconds so I don't think it serves much point other than ruining the look of your picture.
It does look a tad soft Paul, compression from a large file? I think you might have been better off using a polarizer which might have reduced the glare of the rocks, also I would loose a little from the top... But please remember Landscape photography for me is a dark art and my comments are probably totally off the mark
Posted by jack chapman on October 3, 2009 at 12:58 PM
nice image, compostion looks fine too me but then i'm no expert, as said is quite soft though
A couple of things... in your techs you mention curves and levels adjustments, why both?
You also asked for a favourite image, well this is mine;
Image #110324
Hope this helps..
Phil
Posted by Paul Inglis on October 4, 2009 at 7:13 AM
Thanks for the feedback! To be honest I’m struggling to reduce the 139MB file to under 200KB as the blacks keep choking up! The full TIFF file has plenty of detail in it but the JPEG isn’t compressing well. Since I got the D3X I have had to completely rethink my editing!
I’ve reedited the image and may have pushed it too far now. I would appreciate your thoughts.
With this image I was aiming to blur the water and achieve an image which conveys a mood. I have tried this in the past with my D2Xs but couldn’t get the shutter speed long enough nor could I get the DoF as it would diffract after f/11.
I thought about a polariser and will give it a whirl next time I’m up there. I needed six stops to get the exposure right, but probably could have got away with five (a polariser and a 3 stop ND – will have to take the UV filter off though to prevent vignetting).
Glad everyone like the image of the River Neb as it is my favourite!
Happy shooting,
Paul
Posted by Barry Southon on October 4, 2009 at 8:46 AM
Paul
A interesting topic which raises issues. My knowledge is very limited but I feel that with the huge reduction in file size the loss of detail eminates from this action. I've seen it in my own efforts. Also varying viewing monitor settings can be an additional factor which affects comments.
Makes a refreshing change to have a post which invokes imformative debate.
Posted by Guy Rogers on October 4, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Hello Paul.
This image does work for me and I like it but the processing is not quite there. I like the first image better than the second one as the colour temp in nicer it just needs a bit more USM. I usally give mine another USM after I have resized for NPN.
Amount 127 Radius 0.3. or Radius 0.2
The second image looks to hard and cold for me.
I,m in two minds about cropping this image, but would agree the dark area at the top does catch your eye. But to get rid of it means we lose the green area at the top right which I feel is an important part of this image as with out it there is becoming just much rock and it loses it feel to me.
Posted by Mike Smith on October 5, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Your technique is just a tad clumsy - the water is just too diffuse and smooth and thereby lacking any real character in both the waterfall and the pool. For this exposure length to work there has to be more interest around the water for it to flow through, but the cold grey rocks and insignificant ferns just don't hold any interest, the result is a rather flat and bland image. - probably what Rob is considering when he mentions it is flat
Try again with a series of shorter exposures to try and give some texture back to the water. I would guestimate 5 seconds is about right, 30 seconds is just way too long here
I like this image better than the others, the comp works well and leads the eye around the image. It is very nice to see some landscapes here on uknpn. Tristan
Discussion
11 repliesI didn’t take many images but this one I like the best. Other images can be seen on my blog entitled Glen Helen (aka Rhenass Glen), Isle of Man. Let me know which you prefer and why?
Body: D3X
Lens: Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor
Filter: B+W Neural Density Filter (1.8) 101 SH 77mm
Techs: f/16, 30 sec, 50mm, ISO 100
FULL FRAME, curves, levels, resize for web sharpen
Happy shooting,
Paul
Robert
Hope that helps a little. Also not fond of the bold copyright message. Given where you've placed it I could clone it out in seconds so I don't think it serves much point other than ruining the look of your picture.
A couple of things... in your techs you mention curves and levels adjustments, why both?
You also asked for a favourite image, well this is mine;
Image #110324
Hope this helps..
Phil
I’ve reedited the image and may have pushed it too far now. I would appreciate your thoughts.
With this image I was aiming to blur the water and achieve an image which conveys a mood. I have tried this in the past with my D2Xs but couldn’t get the shutter speed long enough nor could I get the DoF as it would diffract after f/11.
I thought about a polariser and will give it a whirl next time I’m up there. I needed six stops to get the exposure right, but probably could have got away with five (a polariser and a 3 stop ND – will have to take the UV filter off though to prevent vignetting).
Glad everyone like the image of the River Neb as it is my favourite!
Happy shooting,
Paul
A interesting topic which raises issues. My knowledge is very limited but I feel that with the huge reduction in file size the loss of detail eminates from this action. I've seen it in my own efforts. Also varying viewing monitor settings can be an additional factor which affects comments.
Makes a refreshing change to have a post which invokes imformative debate.
This image does work for me and I like it but the processing is not quite there. I like the first image better than the second one as the colour temp in nicer it just needs a bit more USM. I usally give mine another USM after I have resized for NPN.
Amount 127 Radius 0.3. or Radius 0.2
The second image looks to hard and cold for me.
I,m in two minds about cropping this image, but would agree the dark area at the top does catch your eye. But to get rid of it means we lose the green area at the top right which I feel is an important part of this image as with out it there is becoming just much rock and it loses it feel to me.
Try again with a series of shorter exposures to try and give some texture back to the water. I would guestimate 5 seconds is about right, 30 seconds is just way too long here