View Full Version : Landscape at 18mm and 220mm
07-25-2007, 02:09 AM
I took this in Twin Falls, Idaho. This river gorge is called "Magic Valley." The lake in the second shot is visible in the first shot, on the left between the first and second bridge supports.
I did quite a lot of PP on these shots to remove the haze from the wildfires. What comments and criticism do you have? Edits welcome.
18mm, 1/50 sec., f/13, ISO 200
220mm, 1/500 sec., f/8, ISO 200
07-25-2007, 02:17 AM
Nice shots; Personally on the first I would have left a tad more sky above the bridge than you did, but it would have been a shame to miss out on the shrubs and face below you by doing that.
07-25-2007, 02:19 AM
Yes, unfortunately the sky above the bridge was completely featureless, and 18mm is my widest end ... for now. A wideangle lens is on my wish list :D
Wow! I love the 1st pic... i like the saturated colours! However, the ending above the bridge seems a bit abrupt though..
Still very nice!
07-25-2007, 10:24 AM
I concur with the others who'd like a little more sky over the top of the bridge. But with your lenses and camera, the camera having a 1.5X crop factor, weren't you really shooting at 27mm equivalent on the first one?
07-25-2007, 12:41 PM
Yep, I think my camera has a 1.5x crop factor, so that would make it 27mm and 330mm.
Since the sky was so completely featureless, I might be able to add some in PP. Hmm, I'll work on that ...
07-25-2007, 01:08 PM
Okay, what do you think of these?
In this one, I added quite a bit of sky, and cropped to the aspect ratio (I could have framed this shot in-camera.)
For this one, I didn't worry about the aspect ratio, and obviously added the border, just for fun.
Which one do you prefer? Any suggestions?
Also, I haven't gotten any comments on the 220mm shot ... apparently it isn't very striking? Do you think it's the lack of sky in the shot to give it depth? Does it need more saturation?
07-25-2007, 01:26 PM
I'd say the composition of the new wide angle shot was better, but the photoshopped sky does look a bit featureless, despite you saying that it was in real life - it also looks a bit blown out, maybe try darkening it, that might help.
As for the second shot, it didn't strike me like the first one did no. I don't know why, it's a nice shot by any standards, and the landscape is stunning, but it hasn't quite got the umph to be a brilliant photograph. It's just one of those things I guess - You can't explain it, but something is holding it back. Maybe a bit more contrast to dispel the slightly washed out look that's over it at the moment?
07-26-2007, 06:17 PM
Thanks, Paradox. I tried changing the sky, it seemed to look better with a little "something" rather than a flat color. Do you think I'm on the right track here? Does it make sense for the clouds to be that color in this shot?
And how about this edit? Too much?
07-27-2007, 05:42 AM
First is looking good now - it's not over the top, but it adds a bit of interest and realism. Good work. :)
For the second, I'd say you could use a bit less contrast up the front, but the background is about right. Also I'd have a play around with some software to try and reduce the noisey looking stuff on the far background if I were you.
07-27-2007, 08:30 PM
Thanks, Paradox! I'm glad you like the new sky :) and thanks for the tips on #2. I'll keep at it.
07-28-2007, 12:11 AM
I like both of the later versions its always interesting to see what can be brought out of original shots with hindsight & time at home. My only thought on the tele shot is that I would have cropped it a bit to reduce the top background & probably the LHS part so that the scene brought more attention on the boats on the lake. But not too closely cropped so you keep the feeling that you were looking in on a quiet private scene in a nice lonely background spot. If that all makes sense. JMHO.
07-28-2007, 12:26 AM
Sort of like this - what do you think better or worse? or just different maybe?
07-28-2007, 09:10 PM
lol great minds think alike! :D before printing that shot today, I did crop it. I left more at the top instead of the bottom, but they're pretty much the same. I wasn't real happy with the print though, the colors are too "neon," kind of a green cast on everything ... I'll need to take another look at the processing ...
07-28-2007, 10:16 PM
Great mind.....thanks for the complement ;). Yes I know what you mean about the colours they look quite good on the screen but I guess printing is another matter.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2016 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.