Favorite Minnesota images
S and S Patterson
Andy Cosgrove
Here's one of my favorites taken in Stillwater early last winter of the lift bridge. Stillwater is my hometown.
Off to the relatives now! I'll check later.
Steve
rrut...@aim.com
in the Lake Bemidji State Park.
exif info at: http://www.pbase.com/rruttger/image/35396991
Randy
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
davev
Because I try to take wildlife shots with no man-made stuff in them, I
guess I don't have a lot of shots
that are strictly Minnesota. But I do have a few.
Minnehaha Falls last spring.
Downtown St.Paul from the south end of the High Bridge.
National Cemetery
The firing of the cannon at Fort Snelling.
Steve
time and f/?
Andy Cosgrove
And Randy, those northern lights shots on your site are great. They never cease to amaze me.
Steve
davev
Steve wrote:
> St. Paul, I meant..............sorry.
This was two pictures stacked in photoshop.
One was 20 seconds at F22. This give the lights the star look.
The other was 1 second and F5.6
rruttger
you used to create it. Also loved your gallery and "Kate in the
Clouds" but more about that later. Tell me more about stacking in
PhotoShop. I've heard it is difficult to line up the images. Is there
a trick? Also did you use a filter to get the star effect on the f-20
shot, or does that just happen when the lens is stopped down?
You have a very nice gallery on Pbase. Very impressive shots. You did
an especially good job with "Kate in the Clouds" I don't have a
clue how you did it but I suspect you used a radial gradient to get the
image of Kate, matched up the colors and placed that layer on the cloud
shot. Am I close? Very well done!
Randy
Andy Cosgrove
Justin Holmes
links. All are shot with the D70 and the 18-70 kit lens (I think all
the water shots have a hoya CP as well)
Minnehaha Falls from the top
http://www.pbase.com/poliscijustin/image/52308871
And from the bottom
http://www.pbase.com/poliscijustin/image/51056895
Downtown overlooking loring park
http://www.pbase.com/poliscijustin/image/51430860
The basillica (I want to reshoot this one, it could be sharper)
http://www.pbase.com/poliscijustin/image/51430861
The new Walker
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~holm0385/walkersmall.jpg
Justin Holmes
of those myself soon.
Justin Holmes
notices that many of my longer exposure night shots are less sharp
because of lens diffraction from using a high f number and from the
amount of jitteriness introduced, even through a tripod) by keeping the
lens open for more than 20 seconds.
Dave, I too am curious about how easy it is to line up two shots with
different apertures. I know plenty of people will stack exposures to
extend the dynamic range, but I think most of them do it by adjusting
the shutter speed only to expose one image for the highlights and one
for the shadows. Those tend to be easy to line up if you are using a
good tripod.
The reason I am curious about apertures is that some adjustments seem
to changed the effective zoom lenght a tad. One technique I have been
playing with (and seen below) is to stack two exposures, one in focus,
one completely out and slightly oversaturated. This gives kind of a
cool diffuse glow to things, while allowing you to keep sharpness where
you want it (shot below is an example). The problem that I have had is
that at the same focal length, the field of view changes depending on
where it is focused. Not a ton, but enough that when I was adjusting
the opacity between the two layers, it kind of felt like I had a few
too many drinks. I've been told this Change in FOV is sometimes called
focus breathing and not uncommon (and a non issue except when you go to
do something like this...). I was just curious if changing the
apertures had similar problems?
davev
photos I stacked. I have another one from that same shoot
that was 30 seconds long. Or I may have just stacked the same picture
twice, one before processing, one after. I don't remember.
I did that edit a year ago. Sorry.
Most of the time I only change the shutter speed if I'm going to stack
the shots. These were early on, when I first got the DSLR.
I looked at the larger picture, and there is some ghosting going on, so
I think you're right about not changing the aperture.
The star affect has do with the shape and how many blades there are in
the lens. I don't know the technical stuff behind it, but that's what
I've read.
This shot was: s25.0, f36, ISO 400
For Kate in the clouds, this was 2 pictures stacked again. I erased the
back part of her head, and added it to the cloud picture.
When I erased, I kind of followed along the lighter edge or thicker
cloud line to hide some of the rough erasing.
Andy Cosgrove
gaussian blur and change the layer to overlay or soft light. It gives
you the same effect without needing two exposures. I use the technique
quite often since I recently learned it. I've never heard of actually
using two different frames. Kind of a neat idea that I would never have
though of. I suppose it was one used more often with film and before
digital editing?
Here's one of my more obvious examples of this use in landscape. It's
the old Cedar Avenue Bridge.
rruttger
about in your bridge and water shot. You said it is made from two
images, one with a soft focus. I guess the fact that I could not pick
out the fact that two images were used is a good thing, you must have
done a good job. Whatever it is, the effect worked.
Changing the focus does affect the magnification of the lens. The
Magnification of a lens is stated in millimeters as say 200mm. That
figure refers to the distance from the objective lens to the focal
plane. It is usually stated when the lens is focused at infinity. As we
focus a lens, we are moving the Objective lens closer or farther from
the focal plane so literally the lens gets a little more powerful as we
move the objective lens out and a little less powerful as we move it
in. The actual size of a modern camera lens can be much different from
the dimensions inferred by it's focal length. Lens makers use all sorts
of tricks, but if you used a simple lens to focus an image on your
focal plane, a 200mm lens would have it's objective lens exactly 200mm
from your film plane when focused at infinity. There should be no
change in focal length or image size when changing the aperture.
Could you get the effect you are looking for by applying a blur and
levels adjustment to an image then merging it back with the original
image?
Randy
rruttger
Was the bridge in sharper focus in the original shot? If so, that
Photoshop technique really makes this shot work. I'll have to try it.
Randy
Justin Holmes
difference in focal it in the final shot if you keep the opacity of the
final shot under 30%. The overall effect of the technique is pretty
subtle, but the processed photo is more 3d feeling than the original
sharp version was. Worklow wise, I converted both shots from raw, and
made the OOF shot much more saturated and slightly overexposed (or else
I shot it overexposed by about 2/3 of a stop in the first place, I
don't recall now), and the sharp shot was a normal exposure, but over
sharpened a tad and with boosted contrast. You are absolutely right,
you can do the same thing (with less hassle) by making a second layer
in PS and applying a gaussian blur to it. It just happened before I
took this one, someone on DPreview had posted about it, so I gave it a
try.
Justin Holmes
trying to find a b&w technique that really clicks with me.
joroho
my way home from work along Shepard Road in St. Paul. Not sure why it
struck me so,
but it seemed like it would make a neat photo. I also can't figure out
the attachment process. I tried sending an e-mail to
<mnp...@googlegroups.com> with "Favorite Minnesota images" in the
subject line and the photo attached to the body. No luck. What am I
doing wrong?
http://www.joroho.com/powerplant.jpg
.joroho.
Ben Franske
out but people can feel free to peruse my image galleries. You can find
my main gallery at:
http://ben.franske.com/gallery/
and some specialty indoor low-light concert photography at:
http://t1.franske.com/cjmedia/gallery/
If anything particular catches your eye please let me know as I'd be
curious as to what people like. You'll probably notice a few things,
one of which is that I rarely if ever do any post-processing (none of
the shots in the galleries are post-processed) my photos are usually
oportunistic and not planned shoots (no tripod, limited time to shoot,
etc) and I take a lot of different types of photographs. I also
resisted digital as a format until the 8MP DSLRs became cost-competitve
with 35mm SLRs.
joroho
I'm curious what software/service you used for creating your gallery.
.joroho.
Steve
it will take. Try it with a smaller image size.
Ben Franske
program that runs on my webserver. I've been using it for at least four
years now, it's the best I've seen.
Dilemma
http://home.comcast.net/~tommyjd/wsb/media/177001/site1124.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~tommyjd/wsb/media/177001/site1127.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~tommyjd/wsb/media/177001/site1130.jpg
A few of mine from around town, one from Duluth also
Andy Cosgrove
Here it is virtually unprocessed:
http://visualgratification.com/photos/file/cedar1.jpg
And here's the one with the "soft glow":
http://visualgratification.com/photos/file/cedar2.jpg
rruttger
someone else. The State Park Lagoon photo was taken in B&W mode with My
Canon 20D. With the B&W mode you can also select "color filters". I
don't remember, If I was using a filter, but I often use red. Each
filter gives a slightly different effect. Red darkens a blue sky and
makes the clouds stand out. One of them, maybe it's green, makes trees
almost glow. It's fun.
Randy
Justin Holmes
Fortunately, the new version of Capture has a good converter
Patrick Watson
Musket Port view at Fort Snelling.
This was taken during the MN Photo Group’s first “Field Trip” to Fort Snelling. We saw a path leading up alongside the Fort – who wants to battle the burrs? All ‘3’ of us….
Pat
