TR: October Day 6
Paul Saunders
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october06.html
I woke up with a sore throat and a thick head, my cold still not wanting
to leave me. I really had no desire to go out. Various commitments
prevented me from doing an early walk anyway, so I didn't set off until
4:40pm, far too late, I caught the beginning of the rush hour traffic.
It took me 15 minutes just to get out of Swansea, a mere 3 miles.
Starting the walk at 5:20pm, I had less than an hour and a half before
sunset. The weather was overcast, hence my choice to visit the area,
soft light is best for waterfalls in my opinion.
Sgwd Ddwli was my main objective, but almost as soon as I'd set up my
tripod it started to rain. This was worrying for my digital camera, but
fortunately the rain was very light. This fall looks good from many
angles, but the angle shown on the web page is probably my favourite,
featuring a fallen tree which has been there for many years. I took a
very wide panorama of the scene, over a third wider than is shown, but
it was so thin that I've cropped the right hand side out of the picture.
I've always felt that the waterfalls are more interesting in the context
of the surrounding area, and so a panorama can help to show this, not
only the waterfall but the river leading away from it too.
The onset of the rain darkened the light more quickly than would
normally have been the case, so I gave the next fall a miss, and headed
straight on to Horseshoe Falls, which is more accessible and easier to
photograph. I was very disappointed with the light when I got there, it
was extremely dark and dull. I had to use an exposure of 8 seconds at f8
with my digital camera and 1/2 sec at f2.8 with my panoramic camera. I
doubted the results would be much good, but was surprised to find that I
got very good results from the digital shots after a little post
processing (well perhaps I wasn't that surprised). A Very nice looking
print of Horseshoe Falls is now hanging on my wall.
I'd like to have stayed much longer, but it wasn't practical in the
limited light and rain, so I made my way back to the car. It was a very
brief introduction to the Ystradfellte Falls this month, but this will
be the first of a number of visits. Hopefully later visits will yield
even better results. The autumn colours are still in their infancy and
will improve a lot in the coming weeks. The last week of October is
typically the best week for colours. Much depends on how many leaves are
blown down by the wind and washed away by the flooded rivers. Timing can
be critical.
One more point. Prior to many of my walks this month I've felt tired,
lethargic and just plain "under the weather", undoubtedly due to my
lingering cold. However, every time I've gone out I've ended up feeling
fine. Perhaps an effect of the fresh air and exercise? It has definitely
justified the effort I've made to go out each day, even if I wasn't in
the mood.
Distance: 2.4km - Ascent: 60m - Effort Rating: 3.0 - Duration: 1 hour 20
minutes
(Still scraping the barrel with pathetic stats - how low can I go?)
Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
ste ©
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:blu07m$oe$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> tripod it started to rain. This was worrying for my digital camera, but
> fortunately the rain was very light. This fall looks good from many
> angles, but the angle shown on the web page is probably my favourite,
> featuring a fallen tree which has been there for many years. I took a
> very wide panorama of the scene, over a third wider than is shown, but
> it was so thin that I've cropped the right hand side out of the picture.
> I've always felt that the waterfalls are more interesting in the context
> of the surrounding area, and so a panorama can help to show this, not
> only the waterfall but the river leading away from it too.
>
Hi Paul, a very nice photo you've got here! I actually seen it on your
website late last night, so I must have checked it just before you went to
bed (about 12:30am?). Anyway, I'm impressed. I will try some more panorama
shots soon, to see what I can come up with.
Regards,
Stephen
Paul Saunders
> Hi Paul, a very nice photo you've got here!
Thanks, I quite like it!
> I actually seen it on
> your website late last night, so I must have checked it just before
> you went to bed (about 12:30am?).
Ah, so that was you! I was wondering who that was. You must have
looked at it just after I uploaded the page, I checked the stats
straight away after upload! (You might have noticed the WebStat button
at the bottom of the page - it's only the free version which gives
limited information, but the main thing I like about it is that it gives
a count of how many times each page is viewed - so far the Worms Head
page is way in the lead out of the October pages),
> Anyway, I'm impressed.
Well just for you then, I've decided to put a larger version of the
whole panorama online. It's a whopping half a meg though, so be patient
while it loads. I've put a link to it direct from the October 6 page,
or you can go there direct from this link;
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/sgwdddwlipano.html
> I will try
> some more panorama shots soon, to see what I can come up with.
I'll be interested to see them. I've always had trouble with panos in
the past but I think I've cracked it now - the trick is to have a large
overlap. I'm now overlapping each pic by 50%. Expensive to do that
with film but not a problem with digital, and the extra shots really are
worth it with the seamless joins. I'm not even having to adjust
anything in the stitching software, it just does it right first time.
Oh, and use a tripod... :-)
Brian
@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/sgwdddwlipano.html
Stunning. Simply stunning.
Not much more can be said...
--
Brian
David Laight
crap?
RJ Webb
It defines crap.
I expect to see it blown up and behind a travel agents desk.
Hope you were as sucessful today.
Richard Webb
ste ©
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bluflt$5h0$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > I actually seen it on
| > your website late last night, so I must have checked it just before
| > you went to bed (about 12:30am?).
|
| Ah, so that was you! I was wondering who that was. You must have
| looked at it just after I uploaded the page, I checked the stats
| straight away after upload! (You might have noticed the WebStat button
| at the bottom of the page - it's only the free version which gives
| limited information, but the main thing I like about it is that it gives
| a count of how many times each page is viewed - so far the Worms Head
| page is way in the lead out of the October pages),
Yes, it was me! I was on the site after midnight and noticed that all the
text was there, but there was no image (just a blank square, so you must
have just published it), so I refreshed it a minute or two later and voila!
;o) I did notice that WebStat button at the bottom, so I knew I was being
spied on... ;o) Just kidding. I also have tracking stuff on my website,
but it's just the standard stuff that my ISP gives me.
| > Anyway, I'm impressed.
|
| Well just for you then, I've decided to put a larger version of the
| whole panorama online. It's a whopping half a meg though, so be patient
| while it loads. I've put a link to it direct from the October 6 page,
| or you can go there direct from this link;
|
| http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/sgwdddwlipano.html
I viewed it in work on my 19" monitor, and again at home on my 17" monitor -
very nice on each occasion. It only took a few seconds to download on my
work 512k ADSL line, and a bit quicker on my home 1mb cable modem (probably
because I didn't have other work colleagues using the line at the same
time!).
| > I will try
| > some more panorama shots soon, to see what I can come up with.
|
| I'll be interested to see them. I've always had trouble with panos in
| the past but I think I've cracked it now - the trick is to have a large
| overlap. I'm now overlapping each pic by 50%. Expensive to do that
| with film but not a problem with digital, and the extra shots really are
| worth it with the seamless joins. I'm not even having to adjust
| anything in the stitching software, it just does it right first time.
Okay, all my current panorama shots are in the 'experimental trashcan'
folder on my PC, so they are all flawed and you can see the joins and uneven
parts etc. But just for interest, I've posted three of them below. The
originals are all about 2000 pixels high, but these versions are all 400
pixels high:
http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/albert_dock.jpg - this panorama goes from the
Royal Liver Building to the Albert Dock (and handheld). (388kb)
http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/liverpool_office_view.jpg - this smaller
panorama is from my office window (and handheld), looking out towards the
Mersey. (224kb)
http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/liver_building.jpg - this is the Royal Liver
Building at night, at it looks almost comical! What a disaster! :o) By the
way, this was a last panorama I did, I wonder why! I even used a tripod for
this one, but my tripod started to move higher and lower as I was rotating
it, without me realising. (128kb)
| Oh, and use a tripod... :-)
Yes, I have a crappy tripod that my parents got free with their video camera
a few years ago. It's fine for normal landscapes etc, but the problem with
panoramas is that the tripod can move higher and lower as I rotate the
camera left and right - as there is only one 'twist-clamp' to control the
full range of movements (up, down, left, right). I would like to buy a new
tripod for Christmas - one that can be locked to just move left and right
would be great, any ideas or recommendations? For around the Ł100 mark? Or
any worth paying more for?
| Paul
Thanks,
Stephen
Fran
> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/sgwdddwlipano.html
>
Coo! Impressive! Is that the one at Ystradfellte, with the
footpath behind it?
--
Fran
If you need my email address please ask.
Fran
> pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk said...
> > http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/sgwdddwlipano.html
> >
> Coo! Impressive! Is that the one at Ystradfellte, with the
> footpath behind it?
>
But - is it the one with the FP? In one way it looks like it; in
another... the river looks ever so slightly wrong but I can't put my
digit on quite why.)
Paul Saunders
>> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/sgwdddwlipano.html
>
> Stunning. Simply stunning.
Thanks Brian. Glad you liked it.
And the autumn colours aren't even in full swing yet, so I'll probably
take this again later in the month.
Paul Saunders
> It defines crap.
Do you really think so? Where's Ian gone? He's the expert on crap.
> I expect to see it blown up and behind a travel agents desk.
The full size image is 9815 x 1613 pixels. In its original 48-bit Tiff
format the file size is 91 meg.
> Hope you were as sucessful today.
Not really. Nasty cold wind and lots of cloud on the tops today. The
wind was shaking the tripod during the long exposures. I may get
something decent out of it though.
Paul Saunders
> Yes, it was me! I was on the site after midnight and noticed that
> all the text was there, but there was no image (just a blank square,
> so you must have just published it),
Must have just uploaded the page and was still uploading the image.
> I did notice that WebStat button at the
> bottom, so I knew I was being spied on... ;o) Just kidding. I also
> have tracking stuff on my website, but it's just the standard stuff
> that my ISP gives me.
WebStat gives a huge number of stats, but you have to pay to get the
lot. The free version only gives a few stats, but one of the free stats
is a count of every page, which is exactly what I was looking for.
Worth it for that alone - could be used in conjunction with another
counter for other stuff.
By the way, In addition to the US and Canada I've had visits from a many
European countries, even including the Czech Republic. Also one visit
from Brazil. As far as I'm aware there are no links to this site and
it's not on any search engine, so the only way in is through this
newsgroup. I didn't realise so many foreign countries were reading it.
> http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/albert_dock.jpg - this panorama goes from
> the Royal Liver Building to the Albert Dock (and handheld). (388kb)
Looks mostly okay.
> http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/liverpool_office_view.jpg - this smaller
> panorama is from my office window (and handheld), looking out towards
> the Mersey. (224kb)
Looks fine.
> http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/liver_building.jpg - this is the Royal
> Liver Building at night, at it looks almost comical! What a
> disaster! :o)
Yeah, that is a disaster!
How much overlap are you allowing between pics, and which software are
you using to join them?
> By the way, this was a last panorama I did, I wonder
> why! I even used a tripod for this one, but my tripod started to
> move higher and lower as I was rotating it, without me realising.
> (128kb)
Yes, a common problem, that drives me up the wall. It can be very
fiddly getting it right, but well worth the effort (if the panorama is
worth taking of course).
> I would like to buy a new tripod for Christmas - one that
> can be locked to just move left and right would be great, any ideas
> or recommendations? For around the Ł100 mark? Or any worth paying
> more for?
Big heavy tripods may be great in theory, but lugging them around the
countryside is no fun. Rivers and coastal photography aren't too bad,
but dragging them up onto mountain tops is something best avoided. I
personally don't spend much on tripods, and favour smaller, lighter
models. Even if they are a bit flimsy, that's not a problem provided
they stay still when you take the photo. Even the flimsiest tripod will
remain stationary if used with a cable release (and mirror lock if a
film camera) or with a self timer. The main problem is wind.
It was very windy today. My tripod was shaking during the long
exposures. Hmm... :-(
Best to get one with a spirit level built in. In fact I've ordered a
spirit level hot shoe attachment so I can put it on the camera itself.
One problem I find is that I can set up the tripod properly with its
spirit level, but it still doesn't stay level when rotating. Why not?
Well most tripods have three way heads, the third way being to tilt the
camera from horizontal to vertical. Unfortunately this isn't always
perfectly level even though the tripod is. It's also a weak point which
is prone to wobble. (However it's also very convenient for levelling
single shots - much easier than fiddling with the tripod legs.)
Best solution IMO is a video tripod with a two way head. Without the
third movement the weak point is eliminated and thus doesn't suffer from
wobble. It's also perfectly level if the tripod is. Video tripods have
adjustable tension which enables smooth panning. You might not think
this is necessary for stills, but I find it very useful, you can move it
to a new position then let it go and it will stay where it is, so you
don't have to keep tightening and loosening all the time (unless you
have a heavy lens on the camera). It's a bit inconvenient for taking
vertical shots, but it can be done.
Paul Saunders
> (OK, I've just realised it says in the title bar that it's Y'fellte.
> But - is it the one with the FP? In one way it looks like it; in
> another... the river looks ever so slightly wrong but I can't put my
> digit on quite why.)
Because it's not the same one. I can see the similarity though, now
that you've mentioned it. I didn't think they were similar but now I
can see how you might have confused the two.
Paul Saunders
> Go to London Camera Exchange or Jessops and buy secondhand - a good
> Gitzo or Manfrotto should he possible for that price.
Do they make light-weight models by any chance?
Checking the Beacons weather report for yesterday it said 35mph winds
gusting to 50mph on the summits. No wonder my tripod was shaking! (It
even blew over once when there was no camera on top.) This made me
wonder about streamlining. I guess that a circular column would be the
best shape for the tripod legs to avoid catching the wind, and the
thinner the better. Do you know of any tripods with very thin but
strong legs?
Just remembered the trick of hanging a rucksack underneath a light
tripod to give it extra stability. Doh!
> One of the nice things you can do with "proper" tripods is reverse the
> column - I dunno if Paul has any shots of me doing this Sunday - Paul?
Fraid not, no, I didn't think. You should have said.
Forecast for the next couple of days is bleak - overcast, hill fog and
some rain, not to mention wind. Seems like *ideal* conditions for the
waterfalls then (below the fog, out of the wind, soft light).
Bernard Hill
<Brianinne...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
It's very good. But I just hate milky waterfalls. They just don't look
right but certainly are a fad just now.
For my taste waterfalls are taken streaky but not frozen, probably in
the range of 1/50-1/100s depending on the height/speed.
I simply don't understand this preference for long shots.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Paul Rooney
<ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote:
>
>It's very good. But I just hate milky waterfalls. They just don't look
>right but certainly are a fad just now.
I agree on that point - I prefer them to look like the real thing.
--
Paul
My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):
http://paulrooney.netfirms.com
114 Wainwrights
Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at:
http://www.justgiving.com/london2004
Paul Saunders
> It's very good.
Thanks.
> But I just hate milky waterfalls.
I prefer them.
> They just don't look right
But no still photograph of a waterfall looks right. The water moves.
Still cameras can't capture the movement. No matter what shutter speed
you use it won't look right. It's simply a matter of which "wrong" look
you prefer. The only way to truly capture the way they look is to video
them. I've done this and made comparisons with different types of
photographs. No still photograph looks real.
> but certainly are a fad just now.
A fad? Waterfalls have been photographed this way for many years. It's
always been my preference (after the first few years of
experimentation).
> For my taste waterfalls are taken streaky but not frozen, probably in
> the range of 1/50-1/100s depending on the height/speed.
Actually that's one of the worst ways to photograph a waterfall in my
opinion, and in the opinion of many others. I remember reading about
this in a photography book, which stated that shutter speeds should
either be very fast or very slow, (to either freeze or blur the water) -
intermediate shutter speeds look bad. In fact, the range from 1/30 -
1/60 was described as making the water look like "rice pudding", and I
have to agree with that. I think it looks horrible, but having said
that, everyone has different preferences.
> I simply don't understand this preference for long shots.
There are actually very good reasons to photograph waterfalls this way,
irrespective of your preferences.
Waterfalls often occur in deep valleys, often forested. As a
consequence of this, many waterfalls rarely receive much sunshine, and
when they do it often doesn't cover the whole fall, or the area around
it. Some falls never receive any sunshine, others receive partial
sunshine at best.
It's natural for most landscape photographers to take shots in sunshine,
but this often creates problems with waterfalls. Of course, it varies
from fall to fall, but in this particular area (Ystradfellte), all the
falls are in deep forested valleys and most of them rarely receive
suitable sunshine, some never.
Photographing these falls when it's sunny gives huge contrast problems,
even if the fall is fully lit, the surrounding area may be in shadow, so
you end up with extremely bright water and dark shadows, a great recipe
for over-exposed falls or under-exposed shadows. My first experiments
in waterfall photography were in such conditions and after many bad
results I realised this technique was far from ideal.
Soft light on the other hand (when the sky is overcast), is ideal for
such locations, since there are no harsh contrasts. The range of
brightness values between the white water and the darkest shadows is
comfortably within the range of even contrasty slide film like Velvia.
However, soft light is much darker (especially in these deep forested
valleys) and so the exposure needs to be increased. There are three
ways of doing this;
1. Use a faster film, like ISO 400 or faster. The problem with this is
that faster film is grainy and grain is something that most landscape
photographers want to avoid like the plague, so this isn't really an
option (unless you want grain for arty reasons). However, the latest
professional digital cameras are capable of using fast film speeds with
negligible grain, so this problem may soon be a thing of the past.
2. Widen the aperture. The problem with this is that wider apertures
have less depth of field, and for landscapes, more depth of field is
desirable. Most landscape photographers swear by depth of field in
order to get everything in focus, so again, this isn't really an option.
Furthermore, wider apertures result in reduced quality. Resolution is
decreased and vignetting may increase. Most lenses perform best at
medium to small apertures. I once took a range of test shots of a
waterfall at every different aperture and shutter speed combination,
primarily to compare the different effects of different shutter speeds.
What struck me most though, was that the quality of the photographs
noticeably increased at the smaller apertures. Not only were the
foreground rocks brought into sharp focus, but they looked better and
better at smaller apertures. There was some indefinable "quality" about
the look of the rocks that you just don't get with wide apertures. Once
I realised this I was hooked on using small apertures.
3. Increase the shutter speed. With the first two options dismissed
because of grain, shallow depth of field and reduced quality, increasing
the shutter speed is the only option left. It is the only option which
does not affect the quality of the picture. In fact, using slow shutter
speeds is traditional in serious landscape photography because of the
tendency to use slow films and small apertures for the best quality
results. Which is why most serious landscape photographers use tripods.
It also has the "benefit" (in my opinion) of blurring the water to
produce that silky smooth effect.
So the bottom line is that whether or not you like the blurring, the
slow film speed and small aperture are what gives the photograph it's
"quality", and the slow shutter speed is necessary for this.
With the latest developments in digital cameras though (and the Neat
Image software which helps remove grain), I'd be interested in
experimenting with some faster shutter speeds on waterfalls, but if so I
prefer to freeze the water with very fast speeds, I don't like medium
speeds at all.
I may do a few such experiments today in fact, since you've brought this
subject to my attention.
Paul Saunders
> I agree on that point - I prefer them to look like the real thing.
Better use a video camera then, because all still photographs look
unrealistic.
Paul Rooney
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul Rooney wrote:
>
>> I agree on that point - I prefer them to look like the real thing.
>
>Better use a video camera then, because all still photographs look
>unrealistic.
Not if they are still photos of still subjects - but I know what you
mean. It's not quite correct though - you can glance at a waterfall
from a distance, and what you see in that glance can be faithfully
reproduced in a photo.
Bernard Hill
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Paul Rooney wrote:
>
>> I agree on that point - I prefer them to look like the real thing.
>
>Better use a video camera then, because all still photographs look
>unrealistic.
>
>Paul
Well no, I disagree. Moderate motion looks quite realistic: frozen and
milk don't.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Bernard Hill wrote:
>
>> It's very good.
>
>Thanks.
>
>> But I just hate milky waterfalls.
>
>I prefer them.
>
>> They just don't look right
>
>But no still photograph of a waterfall looks right. The water moves.
>Still cameras can't capture the movement. No matter what shutter speed
>you use it won't look right. It's simply a matter of which "wrong" look
>you prefer. The only way to truly capture the way they look is to video
>them. I've done this and made comparisons with different types of
>photographs. No still photograph looks real.
>
>> but certainly are a fad just now.
>
>A fad? Waterfalls have been photographed this way for many years. It's
>always been my preference (after the first few years of
>experimentation).
Many years, yes. Many decades? A fad can last a long time, but it's
still a fad. Just the fashion, no real reason for it.
>
>> For my taste waterfalls are taken streaky but not frozen, probably in
>> the range of 1/50-1/100s depending on the height/speed.
>
>Actually that's one of the worst ways to photograph a waterfall in my
>opinion, and in the opinion of many others. I remember reading about
>this in a photography book, which stated that shutter speeds should
>either be very fast or very slow, (to either freeze or blur the water) -
>intermediate shutter speeds look bad. In fact, the range from 1/30 -
>1/60 was described as making the water look like "rice pudding", and I
>have to agree with that. I think it looks horrible, but having said
>that, everyone has different preferences.
>
>> I simply don't understand this preference for long shots.
>
>There are actually very good reasons to photograph waterfalls this way,
>irrespective of your preferences.
Unless the good reason is "bad taste" I don't agree. I prefer my
pictures of waterfalls.
Well most of my water scenes are in the high hills so darkness isn't a
problem. In fact when I've tried milk I've always had to use ND8 or
higher.
On film I always shot at 400 Fuji and noise wasn't a problem.
>
>With the latest developments in digital cameras though (and the Neat
>Image software which helps remove grain), I'd be interested in
>experimenting with some faster shutter speeds on waterfalls, but if so I
>prefer to freeze the water with very fast speeds, I don't like medium
>speeds at all.
I can certainly stand fast speeds. It's the ghostly milk I find totally
annoying. It looks like no waterfall I've ever seen. Not that it isn't
nice in artistic shots taken for effect, mind. But not for wall-hanging.
>
>I may do a few such experiments today in fact, since you've brought this
>subject to my attention.
Attaboy <g>
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Phil Cook
>In article <bm0utk$1be$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Saunders
><pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>So the bottom line is that whether or not you like the blurring, the
>>slow film speed and small aperture are what gives the photograph it's
>>"quality", and the slow shutter speed is necessary for this.
>
>Well most of my water scenes are in the high hills so darkness isn't a
>problem. In fact when I've tried milk I've always had to use ND8 or
>higher.
>
>On film I always shot at 400 Fuji and noise wasn't a problem.
Only if you don't mind grain the size of golfballs :-)
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
ste ©
"Bernard Hill" <ber...@braeburn.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zOjlwTA9R8g$Ew...@braeburn.demon.co.uk...
Hi Bernard, I like both styles of shooting waterfalls - I judge each photo
on it's own, and quite simply, I either like it or I don't! :o)
Have you got a link for some of your waterfall photos?
Thanks,
Stephen
ste ©
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:blveus$j0j$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > Yes, it was me! I was on the site after midnight and noticed that
| > all the text was there, but there was no image (just a blank square,
| > so you must have just published it),
|
| Must have just uploaded the page and was still uploading the image.
Yes, I must have. I am eager aren't I? :o)
| > I did notice that WebStat button at the
| > bottom, so I knew I was being spied on... ;o) Just kidding. I also
| > have tracking stuff on my website, but it's just the standard stuff
| > that my ISP gives me.
|
| WebStat gives a huge number of stats, but you have to pay to get the
| lot. The free version only gives a few stats, but one of the free stats
| is a count of every page, which is exactly what I was looking for.
| Worth it for that alone - could be used in conjunction with another
| counter for other stuff.
I've got all sorts of stats for my website, but I don't think they include a
page count (which would be the most important one!). But I can tell the
country and the reffering websites, and search engines terms etc. I'm
getting about 4000 hits a month on my site, but it's just a rubbish site
that I haven't updated since university.
| By the way, In addition to the US and Canada I've had visits from a many
| European countries, even including the Czech Republic. Also one visit
| from Brazil. As far as I'm aware there are no links to this site and
| it's not on any search engine, so the only way in is through this
| newsgroup. I didn't realise so many foreign countries were reading it.
|
| > http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/albert_dock.jpg - this panorama goes from
| > the Royal Liver Building to the Albert Dock (and handheld). (388kb)
|
| Looks mostly okay.
Yes, apart from a few joins where you can see the sky colours changing
(easily blended), the main problem is on the right hand side where I've
messed up the Merseyside Maritime Museum - the building is cut in half at
different angles! :-(
| > http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/liverpool_office_view.jpg - this smaller
| > panorama is from my office window (and handheld), looking out towards
| > the Mersey. (224kb)
|
| Looks fine.
Yes, apart from the wonky horizon, it's okay; but this is only a small
panorama of a about three images I think.
| > http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/liver_building.jpg - this is the Royal
| > Liver Building at night, at it looks almost comical! What a
| > disaster! :o)
|
| Yeah, that is a disaster!
Tell me about it! :-( But in a way, I like the Royal Liver Building for the
comedy value! :o) It almost looks like a characterture or cartoon version
of the building!
| How much overlap are you allowing between pics, and which software are
| you using to join them?
I was using the PhotoStich software (piece of cake to use), and was
overlapping about about a third I think. I've read you overlapped by a
half, so will try this myself next time. Also, if large prints are
important (more to you though, than to me), I understand I could take the
shots in portrait orientation, though I would need lots more images to make
the panorama then (not a problem if I take them properly).
| > By the way, this was a last panorama I did, I wonder
| > why! I even used a tripod for this one, but my tripod started to
| > move higher and lower as I was rotating it, without me realising.
| > (128kb)
|
| Yes, a common problem, that drives me up the wall. It can be very
| fiddly getting it right, but well worth the effort (if the panorama is
| worth taking of course).
I've only been experimenting so far, but when I figure out how to get good
results each time with my tripod (if I don't get a new one soon, or before
Christmas), I will aim to get some quality shots of nice places in the bag.
| > I would like to buy a new tripod for Christmas - one that
| > can be locked to just move left and right would be great, any ideas
| > or recommendations? For around the Ł100 mark? Or any worth paying
| > more for?
|
| Big heavy tripods may be great in theory, but lugging them around the
| countryside is no fun. Rivers and coastal photography aren't too bad,
| but dragging them up onto mountain tops is something best avoided. I
| personally don't spend much on tripods, and favour smaller, lighter
| models. Even if they are a bit flimsy, that's not a problem provided
| they stay still when you take the photo. Even the flimsiest tripod will
| remain stationary if used with a cable release (and mirror lock if a
| film camera) or with a self timer. The main problem is wind.
Yes, a nuisance to carry! My current model is veru light, but it's also
poor for panoramas. I don't climb mountains so I should be okay, I normally
walk paths and some hills (nothing to difficult though, and only about 4 or
5 miles at most). As for taking shaky photos, I use the self timer to avoid
camera shake, when required, and there's always the remote control (but I'm
not too bothered about using this). ...but I was thinking about using the
remote control to take a photo of some birds in my garden - by setting up
some bird food in a corner, and have the camera on the tripod nearby. Will
be interesting to see if it works!
| It was very windy today. My tripod was shaking during the long
| exposures. Hmm... :-(
|
| Best to get one with a spirit level built in. In fact I've ordered a
| spirit level hot shoe attachment so I can put it on the camera itself.
| One problem I find is that I can set up the tripod properly with its
| spirit level, but it still doesn't stay level when rotating. Why not?
| Well most tripods have three way heads, the third way being to tilt the
| camera from horizontal to vertical. Unfortunately this isn't always
| perfectly level even though the tripod is. It's also a weak point which
| is prone to wobble. (However it's also very convenient for levelling
| single shots - much easier than fiddling with the tripod legs.)
I was looking at the hot shoe spirit level in Jessops - but it was Ł10! I
thought that looked a bit steep for something that looked so cheap. It's
weird, because I will spend Ł550 on a camera no problems, but I'll stall
about buying little things like this! :-S ...saying that, if you've bought
one, I'm sure I'll get one soon too! ;o)
| Best solution IMO is a video tripod with a two way head. Without the
| third movement the weak point is eliminated and thus doesn't suffer from
| wobble. It's also perfectly level if the tripod is. Video tripods have
| adjustable tension which enables smooth panning. You might not think
| this is necessary for stills, but I find it very useful, you can move it
| to a new position then let it go and it will stay where it is, so you
| don't have to keep tightening and loosening all the time (unless you
| have a heavy lens on the camera). It's a bit inconvenient for taking
| vertical shots, but it can be done.
I've not seen the video tripods, so I will pop into a photography shop when
I get a chance and ask them to show me what they've got. I think I'll need
to see these tripods with my own eyes to realise what I'm getting. The same
went for the LowePro Nova 1AW bag I bought recently - I went through all the
bags in Jacobs to see which ones would fit all my stuff, whilst not being
too big. I can fit plenty into this bag: my G5 (with lensmate adaptor
attached), 420EX flash, 50mm lens (for macros), 2x teleconverter, 0.75 wide
angle converter, cokin filter holder, a few filters, a cloth, mini-tripod,
etc. I think you get the idea! :o) It fits over the shoulder as I prefer
them, but I know you've said you don't like them like this.
| Paul
Regards,
Stephen
ste ©
"Chris Street" <despam....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3f884b89....@text.news.ntlworld.com...
| >| Oh, and use a tripod... :-)
| >
| >Yes, I have a crappy tripod that my parents got free with their video
camera
| >a few years ago. It's fine for normal landscapes etc, but the problem
with
| >panoramas is that the tripod can move higher and lower as I rotate the
| >camera left and right - as there is only one 'twist-clamp' to control the
| >full range of movements (up, down, left, right). I would like to buy a
new
| >tripod for Christmas - one that can be locked to just move left and right
| >would be great, any ideas or recommendations? For around the Ł100 mark?
Or
| >any worth paying more for?
|
| can get a video head which is a little smoother and will work well.
|
| One of the nice things you can do with "proper" tripods is reverse the
| column - I dunno if Paul has any shots of me doing this Sunday - Paul?
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >Thanks,
| >
| >Stephen
Hi Chris, I will go along to my local Jessops and Jacobs and see what they
have to offer. I don't even know what I want at the moment, and crikey, I
didn't realise how expensive they were! :-o From what I've seen, Ł100
wouldn't get me much better than what I've got now! I think secondhand will
be a good bet when I realise what I want!
Thanks,
Stephen
Phil Cook
>| > http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/liver_building.jpg - this is the Royal
>| > Liver Building at night, at it looks almost comical! What a
>| > disaster! :o)
>|
>| Yeah, that is a disaster!
>
>Tell me about it! :-( But in a way, I like the Royal Liver Building for the
>comedy value! :o) It almost looks like a characterture or cartoon version
>of the building!
Hey, I like that! Who says photography isn't art!
Fran
> Fran wrote:
>
> > (OK, I've just realised it says in the title bar that it's Y'fellte.
> > But - is it the one with the FP? In one way it looks like it; in
> > another... the river looks ever so slightly wrong but I can't put my
> > digit on quite why.)
>
> Because it's not the same one.
That would explain it then :-)
> I can see the similarity though, now
> that you've mentioned it. I didn't think they were similar but now I
> can see how you might have confused the two.
The fall itself is similar, and it does look as if there could be a
path behind it; however now I think about it the fall with the path
behind is actually just a vertical drop along a straightish river.
The one in the photo seems to feed into a separate river in the same
way that a normal confluence would - but vertically. I typed and
retyped that I don't know how many times. It turned out to be
extraordinarily difficult to put what I meant into coherent words.
Did I succeed in the end? :-)
Fran
> For my taste waterfalls are taken streaky but not frozen, probably in
> the range of 1/50-1/100s depending on the height/speed.
>
Bernard Hill
<s...@sm9.co.uk> writes
No, sorry, I never got any which were worth the effort of "publishing".
I tend to walk the hills, rather than glens.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>ber...@braeburn.co.uk said...
>> For my taste waterfalls are taken streaky but not frozen, probably in
>> the range of 1/50-1/100s depending on the height/speed.
>>
>In English please?
Shutter speed around one fiftieth to one hundredth of a second. So if
water is falling at the bottom at maybe 2 metres per second then the
streaks would be around 9" long. At the top maybe 2".
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Fran
Paul Saunders
>> Better use a video camera then, because all still photographs look
>> unrealistic.
>
> Not if they are still photos of still subjects - but I know what you
> mean. It's not quite correct though - you can glance at a waterfall
> from a distance, and what you see in that glance can be faithfully
> reproduced in a photo.
I disagree. We don't see moving things in the same way as we see
stationary things. But there you go, no point arguing about it.
I did make a point of looking closely at the water today though, and it
probably did look closer to rice pudding than silk or ice. Having said
that, I'm sure I've looked at waterfalls in virtual darkness and they
did look silky - maybe we have some kind of shutter speed in our brains?
Paul Saunders
> Well no, I disagree. Moderate motion looks quite realistic: frozen and
> milk don't.
I agree that they don't, but I still think they look better than
"realistic".
Paul Saunders
> Many years, yes. Many decades? A fad can last a long time, but it's
> still a fad. Just the fashion, no real reason for it.
But as I already explained in quite some depth, there are three real
reasons for it - depth of field, fine grain and optimum lens quality.
These factors will produce better looking photographs than grainy, lower
res vignetted shots with shallow depth of field, irrespective of whether
or not there's a waterfall in the picture. This oft used technique just
happens to produce a silky effect when there is a waterfall in the
photograph, but that's not the prime reason for doing it, it's just a
beneficial (IMO) side-effect.
>> There are actually very good reasons to photograph waterfalls this
>> way, irrespective of your preferences.
>
> Unless the good reason is "bad taste" I don't agree.
How many times do I have to remind you what the good reasons are? The
silky effect is incidental.
Besides, I don't associate that effect with bad taste at all, it's a
very professional look.
> I prefer my pictures of waterfalls.
Nothing wrong with personal preference.
But later, in reply to Ste, who asked;
"Have you got a link for some of your waterfall photos?"
You replied;
"No, sorry, I never got any which were worth the effort of
"publishing"."
Now I don't wish to be critical, not having seen the shots in question,
but does it not occur to you that perhaps the reason that they weren't
worth the effort is because you did not use the techniques I pointed
out? I'm not talking about the silky effect here, I'm just trying to
bring to your attention the fact that the techniques I mentioned result
in a much higher quality looking picture.
During my formative years I spent three years photographing waterfalls
before I finally managed to produce good quality images, and the key
elements were small apertures and fine grained professional film, which
of course required slow shutter speeds and thus a tripod. Prior to that
all my waterfall shots looked totally naff. They may have looked
realistic but they had shallow depth of field and no look of "quality"
to them. I used to think that it was the quality of the light that was
to blame, but eventually realised that it was the quality of the
aperture that was to blame.
> On film I always shot at 400 Fuji and noise wasn't a problem.
I tried shooting waterfalls on 400 Fuji once and they are the worst
waterfall shots I've ever taken.
> I can certainly stand fast speeds.
But it's difficult or impossible to get it with 50 or 100 film.
> It's the ghostly milk I find totally annoying.
I find it strange that anyone hates it so much, you're the first person
I've known to say this.
> It looks like no waterfall I've ever seen.
So?
> Not that it isn't nice in artistic shots taken for effect, mind.
Yeah...
> But not for wall-hanging.
Why not? What's wrong with hanging an artistic shot?
>> I may do a few such experiments today in fact, since you've brought
>> this subject to my attention.
>
> Attaboy <g>
Yes, especially for you I took a series of shots at different shutter
speed / aperture combinations and was surprised to find that the quality
didn't deteriorate as much as I've been saying. Of course this was with
my digital camera, so this is one more plus point in favour of digital.
It seems that the quality deterioration isn't so bad. I haven't studied
the shots that closely yet, but at first glance I can't see any major
quality reduction. The shots I took on 400 didn't look at all bad
(probably because there was nothing smooth in the image to give the
noise away). Also the shallow depth of field wasn't a problem because
digital has much greater depth of field than 35mm.
So the bottom line is that the arguments I put forward still hold true
for film, but have far less effect on digital, so digital offers a real
choice of shutter speeds without having to lose much quality. I still
prefer the silky effect though! :-)
Not only did I take a number of extra shots at various shutter speeds
(up to 1/500th), but I also took a few videos, since my camera has that
facility. One small problem though, I took a few videos in portrait
mode, but my camera didn't rotate them. Then I remembered that TV
screens aren't that shape... Doh!
Is there any free software that will rotate a video? Come to think of
it, is there any free software to convert an AVI to an MPEG?
Paul Saunders
> Tripods don't need strong legs. Tripods need stiff legs. The easiest
> way to make a pole stiff is to make it wide
Which then catches the wind better. I did find myself thinking that my
camera is not a very aerodynamic shape, it was that that was catching
the wind the most. Perhaps they should make cameras in the shape of a
sphere? Wind cameras?
> Bungee cords and a crossed pair of tent pegs work even better as they
> dont swing in the wind.
What do you mean crossed?
> I'll probably be down Ystradfellte over the weekend
I've already arranged something for Saturday. When are you planning to
come down?
> what are the trees like for colour?
Take a look at the pano again, it tells the story. Still a lot of green
around but there are a few trees starting to turn, more in some areas
than in others. There's a smattering of fallen leaves around too, not
many but enough to spice up the photos a little. The photos clearly
show that autumn is *beginning*, but it won't be in full swing for
another couple of weeks at least.
Still, they don't look like summer photos with its blanket of green,
they look more like "summer plus" (or should that be "summer minus"?).
The rivers could do with a bit more water though, they're pretty low at
the moment. Not summer low, there is some water, but it's not even
average yet, the falls are not very wide. We should have some wet
spells soon though, but you need to get there straight after the rain,
or even before it's stopped. The rivers drop very quickly after the
rain stops, within 2 or 3 hours, because the rivers feeding the falls
are so short.
ste ©
Never mind Bernard, if you do ever get some that you think are worthy, be
sure to post the link here as I'm sure I'm not the only person who is
interested in photography in the group.
Thanks,
Stephen
ste ©
"Phil Cook" <urw...@p-t-cook.freeserveSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote in message
news:isq8ovkgg180apmjm...@4ax.com...
It's certainly different! :o) I hope to get a technically sound photo of
the same scene in the next few weeks, I'll post it when (or if!) I've got
it.
Regards,
Ste
ste ©
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:37:51 GMT, "ste ©" <s...@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris Street" <despam....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:3f884b89....@text.news.ntlworld.com...
> >| >| Oh, and use a tripod... :-)
> >| >
> >| >Yes, I have a crappy tripod that my parents got free with their video
> >camera
> >| >a few years ago. It's fine for normal landscapes etc, but the problem
> >with
> >| >panoramas is that the tripod can move higher and lower as I rotate the
> >| >camera left and right - as there is only one 'twist-clamp' to control
the
> >| >full range of movements (up, down, left, right). I would like to buy
a
> >new
> >| >tripod for Christmas - one that can be locked to just move left and
right
mark?
> >Or
> >| >any worth paying more for?
> >|
> >| Go to London Camera Exchange or Jessops and buy secondhand - a good
> >| Gitzo or Manfrotto should he possible for that price. As Paul says you
> >| can get a video head which is a little smoother and will work well.
> >|
> >| One of the nice things you can do with "proper" tripods is reverse the
> >| column - I dunno if Paul has any shots of me doing this Sunday - Paul?
> >| >
> >| >
> >| >| Paul
> >| >
> >| >
> >| >Thanks,
> >| >
> >| >Stephen
> >
> >Hi Chris, I will go along to my local Jessops and Jacobs and see what
they
> >have to offer. I don't even know what I want at the moment, and crikey,
I
> >wouldn't get me much better than what I've got now! I think secondhand
will
> >be a good bet when I realise what I want!
> >
> know but it is worth it. Mind you compared to the cost of good AF glass
> a tripod and camera is next to nothing!
Indeed Chris, a sickening thought! I think I'll put it on the Christmas
list and see what family members are feeling flush this year (as if!)! ...in
other words, I'll start saving now! :o)
Regards,
Ste
Paul Rooney
>http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/liver_building.jpg - this is the Royal Liver
>Building at night, at it looks almost comical! What a disaster! :o)
It looked exactly like that last time I staggered past it.
ste ©
"Paul Rooney" <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:olaaov47tre7u7f49...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:45:55 GMT, "ste ©" <s...@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/liver_building.jpg - this is the Royal Liver
> >Building at night, at it looks almost comical! What a disaster! :o)
>
> It looked exactly like that last time I staggered past it.
>
> --
> Paul
I know what you mean! :o)
Ste
Bernard Hill
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Bernard Hill wrote:
>
>> Many years, yes. Many decades? A fad can last a long time, but it's
>> still a fad. Just the fashion, no real reason for it.
>
>But as I already explained in quite some depth, there are three real
>reasons for it - depth of field, fine grain and optimum lens quality.
>These factors will produce better looking photographs than grainy, lower
>res vignetted shots with shallow depth of field, irrespective of whether
>or not there's a waterfall in the picture. This oft used technique just
>happens to produce a silky effect when there is a waterfall in the
>photograph, but that's not the prime reason for doing it, it's just a
>beneficial (IMO) side-effect.
OK, but I really don't think grain is that important for landscapes. I
have film-taken 5 year old 400 Fuji film prints on my walls up to 18x12
and you have to step up close to see the grain.
And grain is getting "better" all the time.
>
>>> There are actually very good reasons to photograph waterfalls this
>>> way, irrespective of your preferences.
>>
>> Unless the good reason is "bad taste" I don't agree.
>
>How many times do I have to remind you what the good reasons are? The
>silky effect is incidental.
>
>Besides, I don't associate that effect with bad taste at all, it's a
>very professional look.
Ouch! While you are entitled to your opinions I do NOT regard it as
professional, merely "trendy".
(Sorry to bat on... it's a hobby-horse of mine <g>)
>
>> I prefer my pictures of waterfalls.
>
>Nothing wrong with personal preference.
>
>But later, in reply to Ste, who asked;
>
>"Have you got a link for some of your waterfall photos?"
>
>You replied;
>
>"No, sorry, I never got any which were worth the effort of
>"publishing"."
>
>Now I don't wish to be critical, not having seen the shots in question,
>but does it not occur to you that perhaps the reason that they weren't
>worth the effort is because you did not use the techniques I pointed
>out? I'm not talking about the silky effect here, I'm just trying to
>bring to your attention the fact that the techniques I mentioned result
>in a much higher quality looking picture.
No, it's simply the composition. My waterfalls were small ones in the
hills and you don't get as good composition there. And I don't have many
since there are not many waterfalls in the hills, as you say.
Consequently with poor composition I've not made any effort to tart up
the pictures for printing or public consumption.
>
>During my formative years I spent three years photographing waterfalls
>before I finally managed to produce good quality images, and the key
>elements were small apertures and fine grained professional film, which
>of course required slow shutter speeds and thus a tripod. Prior to that
>all my waterfall shots looked totally naff. They may have looked
>realistic but they had shallow depth of field and no look of "quality"
>to them. I used to think that it was the quality of the light that was
>to blame, but eventually realised that it was the quality of the
>aperture that was to blame.
>
>> On film I always shot at 400 Fuji and noise wasn't a problem.
>
>I tried shooting waterfalls on 400 Fuji once and they are the worst
>waterfall shots I've ever taken.
>
>> I can certainly stand fast speeds.
>
>But it's difficult or impossible to get it with 50 or 100 film.
>
>> It's the ghostly milk I find totally annoying.
>
>I find it strange that anyone hates it so much, you're the first person
>I've known to say this.
Oh, it looks pretty all right. But it has no place in landscape
photography where the predominant feeling should be realism - "I wish I
were there". You don't get that feeling in dreamland.
>
>> It looks like no waterfall I've ever seen.
>
>So?
So it's not realistic. See my comment above.
>
>> Not that it isn't nice in artistic shots taken for effect, mind.
>
>Yeah...
>
>> But not for wall-hanging.
>
>Why not? What's wrong with hanging an artistic shot?
Nothing, as long as you munge it sufficiently to show that it's not even
supposed to be realistic.
>
>>> I may do a few such experiments today in fact, since you've brought
>>> this subject to my attention.
>>
>> Attaboy <g>
>
>Yes, especially for you I took a series of shots at different shutter
>speed / aperture combinations and was surprised to find that the quality
>didn't deteriorate as much as I've been saying. Of course this was with
>my digital camera, so this is one more plus point in favour of digital.
>It seems that the quality deterioration isn't so bad. I haven't studied
>the shots that closely yet, but at first glance I can't see any major
>quality reduction. The shots I took on 400 didn't look at all bad
>(probably because there was nothing smooth in the image to give the
>noise away). Also the shallow depth of field wasn't a problem because
>digital has much greater depth of field than 35mm.
Interesting. All my waterfall pictures *are* on digital as it happens.
>
>So the bottom line is that the arguments I put forward still hold true
>for film, but have far less effect on digital, so digital offers a real
>choice of shutter speeds without having to lose much quality. I still
>prefer the silky effect though! :-)
OK. We remain friends I trust :-)
>
>Not only did I take a number of extra shots at various shutter speeds
>(up to 1/500th), but I also took a few videos, since my camera has that
>facility. One small problem though, I took a few videos in portrait
>mode, but my camera didn't rotate them. Then I remembered that TV
>screens aren't that shape... Doh!
LOL!
>
>Is there any free software that will rotate a video? Come to think of
>it, is there any free software to convert an AVI to an MPEG?
I've no idea about video.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Bernard Hill
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>ber...@braeburn.co.uk said...
>> In article <MPG.19ee84ae3...@news.lineone.net>, Fran
>> <m...@privacy.net> writes
>> >ber...@braeburn.co.uk said...
>> >> For my taste waterfalls are taken streaky but not frozen, probably in
>> >> the range of 1/50-1/100s depending on the height/speed.
>> >>
>> >In English please?
>>
>> Shutter speed around one fiftieth to one hundredth of a second. So if
>> water is falling at the bottom at maybe 2 metres per second then the
>> streaks would be around 9" long. At the top maybe 2".
>
>Thanks. Do you have any examples on a website of your own?
No, sorry. I don't have a photographic web site at all.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Paul Saunders
> OK, but I really don't think grain is that important for landscapes. I
> have film-taken 5 year old 400 Fuji film prints on my walls up to
> 18x12 and you have to step up close to see the grain.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that then. I despise grain, and
I'm very fussy about it. I'm not happy about how much grainier Velvia
is than Provia. The difference is easy to see with a film scan.
You might argue that it's not noticeable in a print, but it depends what
you do to the image first. As you're probably aware I tend to do a bit
of post-processing and things like contrast masking and sharpening have
a nasty habit of enhancing noise and grain. I've made adjustments to
some apparently noise-free digital images and been surprised at the
increase in noise.
> And grain is getting "better" all the time.
True. I won't be happy until I get a completely noise/grain free
camera.
>> Besides, I don't associate that effect with bad taste at all, it's a
>> very professional look.
>
> Ouch! While you are entitled to your opinions I do NOT regard it as
> professional, merely "trendy".
Yet this effect is primarily seen in professional photographs and
typically not in amateur ones.
> (Sorry to bat on... it's a hobby-horse of mine <g>)
Well I could bat on about this endlessly, because I *really* like the
effect, but we may as well just agree to disagree.
> Oh, it looks pretty all right. But it has no place in landscape
> photography where the predominant feeling should be realism
I don't think landscape photography "should be" anything other than what
the photographer wants it to be. It's not photo-journalism or legal
photography, there's no law that says it must be realistic. Many
landscape photographers operate on an "arty" level.
Take Ansel Adams for example, no-one could argue that his shots are
realistic. Even aside from using the blatantly unrealistic black and
white medium, he made extensive use of filters to alter colour balance
in unrealistic ways (almost black skies for example) and used extensive
post-processing techniques in the darkroom to create probably the most
stunning (and unrealistic) landscape prints ever made. Yet he's
reckoned by most to be the best landscape photographer ever, so clearly
realism is not a fundamental prerequisite for landscapes.
> "I wish I were there".
And yet, when you do go there, you almost invariably find that the
landscape doesn't look like the photographs anyway. Most of the best
landscape photographs that are published are taken at ideal times such
as sunrise and sunset (inconvenient for many walkers) and in stunning
weather conditions. How many times have you looked at a wonderful photo
of a place then gone there to find that it rained all day? That's the
reality for many walkers.
I read an interesting article about this in a walking magazine once,
which said that if books and magazines wanted to publish realistic
photographs of the hills and mountains, many of them would have be taken
in rain and hill fog, and would look crap. But people don't want to
look at crap photos of mountains, they want to see them at their best,
even if that's not their personal experience. Thus most landscape
photographs show an idealised version of reality, how we'd like them to
look, even if they don't most of the time.
I've seen some stunning photos of Tryfan in Snowdonia. They were
clearly real photos, but however much I might wish I were there, I know
that the odds of it looking like that when I climb it are remote at
best. And I say that even as someone who actively seeks out such
conditions. Some of the best scenes, however realistic, are extremely
rare, and the feeling the viewer should get is "I'll probably never see
it looking like that".
> You don't get that feeling in dreamland.
I appreciate photographs as beautiful objects in themselves, I don't
feel a need to "go there" (even though with my own photographs I
obviously was there). My photos remind me of visiting these places,
even with the dreamy water etc.
> Nothing, as long as you munge it sufficiently to show that it's not
> even supposed to be realistic.
I don't consider milky water to be *that* unrealistic, not much more
than "rice pudding" water anyway. And what about all the other
unrealisms of photography, like perspective effects, altered dynamic
range and so on? Photographs are not the accurate representation of
reality that many assume them to be, even the supposedly "realistic"
ones.
Unrealism in a photograph is simply a question of degree. Even the most
realistic are slightly unrealstic. Why does there need to be a sharp
dividing line? There are many shades of grey between a totally
realistic photo and a totally unrealistic one. If you want total
realism you should stop using a zoom lens for a start, you should take
everything with a standard lens for the correct perspective (then you
should print it at a specific size and view it from the correct
distance).
> Interesting. All my waterfall pictures *are* on digital as it happens.
That may explain why you haven't noticed these problems then.
> OK. We remain friends I trust :-)
Sure. Nothing wrong with a friendly argument.
ze...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> other words, I'll start saving now! :o)
http://www.ffordes.com
Phil Cook
>On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:45:55 GMT, "ste Š" <s...@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/liver_building.jpg - this is the Royal Liver
>>Building at night, at it looks almost comical! What a disaster! :o)
>
>It looked exactly like that last time I staggered past it.
I was trying to think of some quip involving alcohol but couldn't get my mind
past Sauchiehall Street having met a noisy group of twenty on Cruach Ardrain and
suffered two drunken Glaswegians on the bus last weekend.
Bernard Hill
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Bernard Hill wrote:
>
>> OK, but I really don't think grain is that important for landscapes. I
>> have film-taken 5 year old 400 Fuji film prints on my walls up to
>> 18x12 and you have to step up close to see the grain.
>
>Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that then. I despise grain, and
>I'm very fussy about it. I'm not happy about how much grainier Velvia
>is than Provia. The difference is easy to see with a film scan.
>
>You might argue that it's not noticeable in a print, but it depends what
>you do to the image first. As you're probably aware I tend to do a bit
>of post-processing and things like contrast masking and sharpening have
>a nasty habit of enhancing noise and grain. I've made adjustments to
>some apparently noise-free digital images and been surprised at the
>increase in noise.
Well, yes, sharpening is dreadful for grainy pictures. I only sharpen
lightly, or use an Edge Preserving Smooth beforehand.
>
>> And grain is getting "better" all the time.
>
>True. I won't be happy until I get a completely noise/grain free
>camera.
>
>>> Besides, I don't associate that effect with bad taste at all, it's a
>>> very professional look.
>>
>> Ouch! While you are entitled to your opinions I do NOT regard it as
>> professional, merely "trendy".
>
>Yet this effect is primarily seen in professional photographs and
>typically not in amateur ones.
Agreed.
>
>> (Sorry to bat on... it's a hobby-horse of mine <g>)
>
>Well I could bat on about this endlessly, because I *really* like the
>effect, but we may as well just agree to disagree.
Sounds like a band-width-saver...
>
>> Oh, it looks pretty all right. But it has no place in landscape
>> photography where the predominant feeling should be realism
>
>I don't think landscape photography "should be" anything other than what
>the photographer wants it to be. It's not photo-journalism or legal
>photography, there's no law that says it must be realistic. Many
>landscape photographers operate on an "arty" level.
>
>Take Ansel Adams for example, no-one could argue that his shots are
>realistic. Even aside from using the blatantly unrealistic black and
>white medium, he made extensive use of filters to alter colour balance
>in unrealistic ways (almost black skies for example) and used extensive
>post-processing techniques in the darkroom to create probably the most
>stunning (and unrealistic) landscape prints ever made. Yet he's
>reckoned by most to be the best landscape photographer ever, so clearly
>realism is not a fundamental prerequisite for landscapes.
>
>> "I wish I were there".
>
>And yet, when you do go there, you almost invariably find that the
>landscape doesn't look like the photographs anyway. Most of the best
>landscape photographs that are published are taken at ideal times such
>as sunrise and sunset (inconvenient for many walkers) and in stunning
>weather conditions. How many times have you looked at a wonderful photo
>of a place then gone there to find that it rained all day? That's the
>reality for many walkers.
All that is true. But that's why I used the subjunctive... were <g>
To which I would add "not having the best camera with me".
>
>I read an interesting article about this in a walking magazine once,
>which said that if books and magazines wanted to publish realistic
>photographs of the hills and mountains, many of them would have be taken
>in rain and hill fog, and would look crap. But people don't want to
>look at crap photos of mountains, they want to see them at their best,
>even if that's not their personal experience. Thus most landscape
>photographs show an idealised version of reality, how we'd like them to
>look, even if they don't most of the time.
Nice switch back to on-topic <g>.
However I don't agree as to the reason for nice pictures. If the SMC
Munro guide were full of fog/rain then it would give me no idea at all
what it is like and whether I want to go.
>
>I've seen some stunning photos of Tryfan in Snowdonia. They were
>clearly real photos, but however much I might wish I were there, I know
>that the odds of it looking like that when I climb it are remote at
>best. And I say that even as someone who actively seeks out such
>conditions. Some of the best scenes, however realistic, are extremely
>rare, and the feeling the viewer should get is "I'll probably never see
>it looking like that".
Yet it *did* look like that once and that's great.
Besides, so many people have a wonderful view on a really good day. They
snap it and are disappointed with the result. The photo and the memory
are distinct so the more adjustment you can make to make the photo match
the memory is beneficial.
(I have a wonderful twisted dead tree (Camperdown Elm) in my garden. I
must have dozens of pictures of it in frost, sun, snow. All
disappointing.
Until one day I covered one eye up and looked at it... THAT'S IT, just
like my photos, flat. Now I only take photos of it in 3D)
>
>> You don't get that feeling in dreamland.
>
>I appreciate photographs as beautiful objects in themselves, I don't
>feel a need to "go there" (even though with my own photographs I
>obviously was there). My photos remind me of visiting these places,
>even with the dreamy water etc.
>
>> Nothing, as long as you munge it sufficiently to show that it's not
>> even supposed to be realistic.
>
>I don't consider milky water to be *that* unrealistic, not much more
>than "rice pudding" water anyway. And what about all the other
>unrealisms of photography, like perspective effects, altered dynamic
>range and so on? Photographs are not the accurate representation of
>reality that many assume them to be, even the supposedly "realistic"
>ones.
Very true. But when I see one of my landscapes I can say "that's what it
was like". The waterfalls I find simply jarring.
>
>Unrealism in a photograph is simply a question of degree. Even the most
>realistic are slightly unrealstic. Why does there need to be a sharp
>dividing line? There are many shades of grey between a totally
>realistic photo and a totally unrealistic one. If you want total
>realism you should stop using a zoom lens for a start, you should take
>everything with a standard lens for the correct perspective (then you
>should print it at a specific size and view it from the correct
>distance).
True. But the milky white is so unlike any form of reality I've ever
seen that it is quite a shock and you^H^H^H I lose the feeling that it
actually exists anywhere.
>
>> Interesting. All my waterfall pictures *are* on digital as it happens.
>
>That may explain why you haven't noticed these problems then.
>
>> OK. We remain friends I trust :-)
>
>Sure. Nothing wrong with a friendly argument.
:-)
One day I'll take you walking in Scotland.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
ste ©
<ze...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bm3nr0$ju$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
|
| > other words, I'll start saving now! :o)
| See the used section of the on-line shop at
| http://www.ffordes.com
Hi there,
Thanks for the website recommendation, I've just taken a look in their used
'tripods/monopods' section and they've got plenty of Manfrotto and Gitzo
models (I noticed that the legs and heads come separately, so I will have to
do my research on these). I went into Jacobs today to look at some new
tripods, and they had various Manfrotto models on display. When I find a
model that I'm happy with, I will most probably go to a website like
ffords.com and purchase it there.
Thanks,
Stephen
ze...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> Thanks for the website recommendation,
No problem,
> I've just taken a look in their used
> 'tripods/monopods' section and they've got plenty of Manfrotto and Gitzo
> models
> (I noticed that the legs and heads come separately, so I will
> have to do my research on these).
That would be the usual way to buy a tripod ie select a head and some legs
and put them together, I have 4 head but only two sets of legs.
> I went into Jacobs today to look at some new
> tripods, and they had various Manfrotto models on display. When I find
> a model that I'm happy with, I will most probably go to a website like
> ffords.com and purchase it there.
Makes sense, stress you do not want a used tripod with loose locks tho.
I also buy kit from
http://www.mifsuds.com/
http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/
http://www.mxv.co.uk/
but
http://www.ffordes.coms
have had more of my money than the rest put together, all good used kit.
Mark
Paul Saunders
> It's certainly different! :o) I hope to get a technically sound
> photo of the same scene in the next few weeks, I'll post it when (or
> if!) I've got it.
Two points;
1. Buildings are probably the worst possible subject matter to do a
panorama of, because of all the straight lines. You are just asking for
trouble.
2. When you do take a panorama, for best results keep the camera
perfectly level, i.e. with the horizon in the dead centre of the
picture - don't tilt it up or tilt it down. Tilting makes it much more
difficult to get a decent join, and Canon's stitching software doesn't
compensate for tilt like other programs do. If you get it perfectly
level it will stitch much better.
W. D. Grey
<ber...@braeburn.co.uk> writes
>It's very good. But I just hate milky waterfalls. They just don't look
>right but certainly are a fad just now.
It's a fad that's been around for at least 30 years!
>
>For my taste waterfalls are taken streaky but not frozen, probably in
>the range of 1/50-1/100s depending on the height/speed.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. BTW about 20 years ago in the
Photo mags it was very twee to produce prints of waterfalls, or even
streams that looked like cotton wool. Nice as pictures but definitely
NOT representative of moving water.
>
>I simply don't understand this preference for long shots.
24mm lens just screams for long shots with crisp foregrounds.
Photographers are charmed by the potential of these wide angle lenses
after being restricted by the confines of "normal" focal length lenses.
Anyway the occasional long shot/panorama is lovely.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
Fran
> Mind you compared to the cost of good AF glass
> > a tripod and camera is next to nothing!
>
> Indeed Chris, a sickening thought! I think I'll put it on the Christmas
> list and see what family members are feeling flush this year (as if!)! ...in
> other words, I'll start saving now! :o)
Ask 'em for a fiver or a tenner each and you'll be able to buy it
yourself in the January sales.
Fran
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:45:55 GMT, "ste Š" <s...@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/liver_building.jpg - this is the Royal Liver
> >Building at night, at it looks almost comical! What a disaster! :o)
>
> It looked exactly like that last time I staggered past it.
I like it! A bit more wobbling and Dali would've been proud of it!
Fran
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 23:42:51 +0100, Fran <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >s...@sm9.co.uk said...
> >> Mind you compared to the cost of good AF glass
> >> > a tripod and camera is next to nothing!
> >>
> >> Indeed Chris, a sickening thought! I think I'll put it on the Christmas
> >> list and see what family members are feeling flush this year (as if!)! ...in
> >> other words, I'll start saving now! :o)
> >
> >Ask 'em for a fiver or a tenner each and you'll be able to buy it
> >yourself in the January sales.
>
>
Ah. Yes, I can see that could be a problem...
ste ©
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bm480o$3sh$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> ste Š wrote:
>
> > It's certainly different! :o) I hope to get a technically sound
> > photo of the same scene in the next few weeks, I'll post it when (or
> > if!) I've got it.
>
> Two points;
>
> 1. Buildings are probably the worst possible subject matter to do a
> panorama of, because of all the straight lines. You are just asking for
> trouble.
D'OH! I've seen good panoramas of buildings, so I'll check back in the
depths of my Favourites folder to see if they were stitched or not. I'll
keep trying though, as I'm sure I can get it to work if I take more care.
> 2. When you do take a panorama, for best results keep the camera
> perfectly level, i.e. with the horizon in the dead centre of the
> picture - don't tilt it up or tilt it down. Tilting makes it much more
> difficult to get a decent join, and Canon's stitching software doesn't
> compensate for tilt like other programs do. If you get it perfectly
> level it will stitch much better.
It just so happens that the fairies left me a hot shoe spirt level under my
pillow yesterday... ;o) I'll put it to use this weekend, and I might go to
Chatsworth.
> Paul
Regards,
Stephen
Phil Cook
Dad has four sisters and three brothers. Mum has one sister. Um err. Taking an
average of 2.2 children I get 8x2.2 = 17.6 so add that to the aunts and uncles
and husbands and wives gives roughly 25. If I include my M&D (sadly both sets of
grandparents (step garndfather in one case) are no longer with us so I can't
count them and my brothers I get to 30.
Anyway it still leaves me somewhat short of a Canon 1Ds and 17-40mm f/4 :-(
ste ©
"Fran" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19eff4c2f...@news.lineone.net...
I'll ask them for more than that (not that it has ever had an effect,
mind!).
Second thoughts, I'll just ask my girlfriend to buy me one. She bought me
my camera bag and Stofen diffuser, and also my hot shoe spirit level! So
I'm sure she can be persuaded to part with a little more of her hard
earned...
Ste
ste ©
<ze...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bm47u6$9f6$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
Thanks for the tips Mark, and for the other recommendations. I'll keep them
in my girlfriends Favourites folder so she can order me a 2nd hand model for
Christmas! ;o)
Thanks,
Ste
ste ©
"ste Š" <s...@sm9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lDxhb.3013$1g6.26...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Hi Stephen (& Paul) (shamelessly replying to oneself!) :o)
I didn't go to Chatsworth (I got out of bed too late on Sunday to bother
going!), but I did go for a walk in a farmers field in Whiston, Rotherham...
I've taken this panorama - handheld, using the hot shoe spirit level:
http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/whiston.jpg The file size is 650kb and the
image dimensions are 5424 x 400. It is a 360 degree image, and you can see
that the very end of it would merge with the start (if I had another piece
of software to do this).
The original image was taken with 15 images in landscape format, using the
Stitch Assist mode. The file size was 10.7mb and the final image dimensions
were: 17833 x 1315. It's annoying, as I've lost 700 pixels from the height
of each image to make up the final panorama, so this is where I've gone
off-line I presume). But this one is technically my best panorama so far,
even if the farmers field is rather bland (just for the experiment).
Anyway, I'm just letting you know what I've been up to.
Regards,
Stephen
Phil Cook
>I've taken this panorama - handheld, using the hot shoe spirit level:
>http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/whiston.jpg The file size is 650kb and the
>image dimensions are 5424 x 400. It is a 360 degree image, and you can see
>that the very end of it would merge with the start (if I had another piece
>of software to do this).
It could possibly do with a bit of jazzing up eg. boosting the contrast to
compensate for the rather flat light. But nicely done. The hedge on the right is
a bit boring as you face into it, it would be better to see the top of it.
PanaVue ImageAssembler www.panavue.com which does the stitching also blends the
ends of a 360 degree together. See some of mine that are displayed with a java
applet at http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/java/scopans.htm If you have java
disabled you should get the plain jpeg. Some of these were taken handheld and
were a right pain to get to line up, the easiest to line up are where the camera
is level and it was mounted on a trekking pole monopod.
>The original image was taken with 15 images in landscape format, using the
>Stitch Assist mode. The file size was 10.7mb and the final image dimensions
>were: 17833 x 1315. It's annoying, as I've lost 700 pixels from the height
>of each image to make up the final panorama, so this is where I've gone
>off-line I presume). But this one is technically my best panorama so far,
>even if the farmers field is rather bland (just for the experiment).
I sometimes clone in bits and pieces of sky and foreground to keep as much
height in the picture as possible. I haven't used the Canon softwarte but IA
produces barrel shaped transformations of each individual image before laying
them together after matching the colours, which can be handy if the light is
changing as you take the shots.
ste ©
"Phil Cook" <urw...@p-t-cook.freeserveSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote in message
news:32blovgmeee2hhs1h...@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:45:35 GMT, ste Š wrote:
|
| >I've taken this panorama - handheld, using the hot shoe spirit level:
| >http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/whiston.jpg The file size is 650kb and the
| >image dimensions are 5424 x 400. It is a 360 degree image, and you can
see
| >that the very end of it would merge with the start (if I had another
piece
| >of software to do this).
|
| It could possibly do with a bit of jazzing up eg. boosting the contrast to
| compensate for the rather flat light. But nicely done. The hedge on the
right is
| a bit boring as you face into it, it would be better to see the top of it.
I took these photos at the end of the walk - I thought "oh shit, I've got
this new spirit level and I haven't even used it for a panorama yet!" So I
quickly whipped it out (the spirit level that is!), and took those 15 shots
in the nearest opening along the path. The sky is washed out, and it's a
boring shot I know, but it was only done as practice, if you like. I even
think there's a few bits of litter on the floor too! :o)
| PanaVue ImageAssembler www.panavue.com which does the stitching also
blends the
| ends of a 360 degree together. See some of mine that are displayed with a
java
| applet at http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/java/scopans.htm If you
have java
| disabled you should get the plain jpeg. Some of these were taken handheld
and
| were a right pain to get to line up, the easiest to line up are where the
camera
| is level and it was mounted on a trekking pole monopod.
There's some great pictures on your website, and nice panoramas too! I've
just taken a look now, and I remember seeing the site a while ago when I was
lurking around. It's really cool the way you've got done the 360 degree
views, and it worked fine on IE6 with Java enabled. I really like the way
you've included links to the different peaks too, well done! I'll keep the
panavue website in my favourites in case I get some technically sound
panoramas of anything more interesting than an empty field! ;o)
| >The original image was taken with 15 images in landscape format, using
the
| >Stitch Assist mode. The file size was 10.7mb and the final image
dimensions
| >were: 17833 x 1315. It's annoying, as I've lost 700 pixels from the
height
| >of each image to make up the final panorama, so this is where I've gone
| >off-line I presume). But this one is technically my best panorama so
far,
| >even if the farmers field is rather bland (just for the experiment).
|
| I sometimes clone in bits and pieces of sky and foreground to keep as
much
| height in the picture as possible. I haven't used the Canon softwarte but
IA
| produces barrel shaped transformations of each individual image before
laying
| them together after matching the colours, which can be handy if the light
is
| changing as you take the shots.
I did one tiny piece of editing on my panorama, using the Clone tool to
smooth the join of the road as it wasn't quite lined up (on about the 12th
or 13th image). The Canon software is very easy to use, so it's not bad for
a bundled piece of software. When I find a better scene, I will try and get
everthing perfect as I take it, including the level angle of shooting, the
exposure, and using a ND graduated filter if the sky is particularly bright
(I hate washed out skies!).
| --
| Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Thanks,
Stephen
Paul Saunders
> The one in the photo seems to feed into a separate river in the same
> way that a normal confluence would - but vertically. I typed and
> retyped that I don't know how many times. It turned out to be
> extraordinarily difficult to put what I meant into coherent words.
> Did I succeed in the end? :-)
I think I know what you mean. If you mean that the fall feeds into a
different river, then no, it's all one river, there's no confluence.
Perhaps the shape of the panorama is a bit misleading.
Paul Saunders
> ber...@braeburn.co.uk said...
>> For my taste waterfalls are taken streaky but not frozen, probably in
>> the range of 1/50-1/100s depending on the height/speed.
>>
> In English please?
Different shutter speeds have different effects on water. Fast speeds
freeze the water, slow speeds blur it. Bernard was commenting on the
speeds he likes to use for the particular blur effect that he prefers,
i.e. only slightly blurred.
Fran
> Fran wrote:
>
> > ber...@braeburn.co.uk said...
>
> >> For my taste waterfalls are taken streaky but not frozen, probably in
> >> the range of 1/50-1/100s depending on the height/speed.
> >>
> > In English please?
>
> Different shutter speeds have different effects on water. Fast speeds
> freeze the water, slow speeds blur it. Bernard was commenting on the
> speeds he likes to use for the particular blur effect that he prefers,
> i.e. only slightly blurred.
Thanks Paul :-)
Paul Saunders
> I sometimes clone in bits and pieces of sky and foreground to keep
> as much height in the picture as possible. I haven't used the Canon
> softwarte
One useful feature in the Canon software is to convert the image to
"wide" format before applying the transformations to create the final
result. This stretches the width of the pano (more at the ends than the
middle) and increases the height of each end of the pano. This can
often result in less of the image being cut off, more important details
are retained.
It doesn't work well with every image though, with some it doesn't work
at all (too wide, it works best with panos that aren't very wide,
ideally just two or three shots). The effect is as if it were taken
with a much wider lens, so you have more stretching at the ends. Too
much stretching and it looks terrible, but with not very wide panos it
can give very good results, and it widens the image too.
Definitely worth trying. I often save a pano both ways and choose the
one that looks best. It can sometimes save a pano that crops badly when
done normally.
Paul Saunders
> and using a ND graduated
> filter if the sky is particularly bright (I hate washed out skies!).
After your comments about this I decided to try my grey grad on the day
18 Mumbles sunrise shot. The result was horrible, it had a yucky purple
cast and the join wasn't good. Unfortunately I only took my film shots
this way, I really wish I'd taken a couple without the grad.
If you only saw the shot with the grad you might be impressed, you might
even assume that the purple cast was the colour of the sunrise, but it
wasn't. The digital shots showed what it really looked like and it
looked great after contrast masking in Photoshop. Pity I can't do that
to the film shots, instead I'll have to try to correct the colour cast.
ste ©
| ste Š wrote:
|
| > and using a ND graduated
| > filter if the sky is particularly bright (I hate washed out skies!).
|
| After your comments about this I decided to try my grey grad on the day
| 18 Mumbles sunrise shot.
I'm glad to see I'm inspiring you! ;o)
| The result was horrible, it had a yucky purple
| cast and the join wasn't good. Unfortunately I only took my film shots
| this way, I really wish I'd taken a couple without the grad.
I have found this in certain shots, but it depends on what the sky is like
and where the sun is. I've had shots that have came out looking just as I
saw them, whereas, I've also experienced what you describe with the purple
cast. At least with digital, you should be able to see the results on the
LCD, so you can decide if it works for you or not before it's too late.
| If you only saw the shot with the grad you might be impressed, you might
| even assume that the purple cast was the colour of the sunrise, but it
| wasn't. The digital shots showed what it really looked like and it
| looked great after contrast masking in Photoshop. Pity I can't do that
| to the film shots, instead I'll have to try to correct the colour cast.
I know exactly what you mean Paul, check out the images below from a beach
in Alcudia, Majorca, taken in August this year with my G5 (from the same set
as my first sunrise shots, as I mentioned in another post):
http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/without_grad.jpg (without the graduated ND
filter)
http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/with_grad.jpg (with the graduated ND filter)
If you open both images in the same Internet Explorer, using the Back and
Forward buttons shows the effect quite well.
| Paul
Ste
Paul Saunders
>> The result was horrible, it had a yucky purple
>> cast and the join wasn't good. Unfortunately I only took my film
>> shots this way, I really wish I'd taken a couple without the grad.
>
> I have found this in certain shots, but it depends on what the sky is
> like and where the sun is. I've had shots that have came out looking
> just as I saw them, whereas, I've also experienced what you describe
> with the purple cast.
Yes, I don't know what causes it.
> At least with digital, you should be able to
> see the results on the LCD, so you can decide if it works for you or
> not before it's too late.
Yeah, but not with film.
> I know exactly what you mean Paul, check out the images below from a
> beach in Alcudia, Majorca, taken in August this year with my G5 (from
> the same set as my first sunrise shots, as I mentioned in another
> post):
>
> http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/without_grad.jpg (without the graduated
> ND filter)
>
> http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/with_grad.jpg (with the graduated ND
> filter)
>
> If you open both images in the same Internet Explorer, using the Back
> and Forward buttons shows the effect quite well.
Yeah, that works quite well in fact, not too purple at all.