Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 29, 2010, 8:03 AM   #1
johnnymisadventures's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 58
Default Give Us Your Favorites

Well here are my favs.

This first is the Canadian Parliament buildings before Christmas. It was taken with a 30 second exposure. I was pretty happy with it as I don't often shoot buildings

My other favorite would have to be a kayaking photo (what I take the most of) I took of my friend as she is about to drop of the edge of a waterfall. I stood in the water on the edge of the drop and shot it at 10mm holding the camera above her head. She almost knocked the camera out of my hand with her paddle. The only thing I wish turned out a little better is being able to see the height of the drop a little better. I tried everything I knew in post processing but could not achieve it. Any help of how to do it or examples would be greatly appreciated

johnnymisadventures is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 29, 2010, 8:17 AM   #2
Senior Member
tclune's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093

I think the problem you had with getting the depth of the drop to show up was at least partly due to using such a wide angle lens -- everything is in focus with UWA lenses, and what you would want to suggest the drop is for your friend to be in focus and the water below her to be somewhat more blurry. I'm not sure that that would have done it, but that is what I would have tried. Given the angle of the shot, there isn't going to be any other visual cue to the drop.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2010, 10:36 AM   #3
Senior Member
VTphotog's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,309

Since the camera has only one 'eye', it isn't going to be able to show depth the way we see it, with two. In order to show distances in a two dimensional picture, we need to have something to compare, such as another kayak at the bottom of the falls, or to take the shot from downstream, so there is a comparison between the person and the height of the falls. As tclune mentions, the WA lens also tends to foreshorten perspective.

VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2010, 9:09 PM   #4
Senior Member
mtngal's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,177

All I can say is that I like both pictures. While there isn't the oof to give you a feeling of height, if you look at the water ripples both above and below the falls, you get the idea.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2010, 11:09 PM   #5
calr's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 8,466

The first shot doesn't look real to me. It looks like a diorama you might setup on the fireplace mantel.

I agree with the other comments about the second shot.

calr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2011, 7:27 AM   #6
Senior Member
vsch1's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,885

The festive building looks very odd against the night sky which seems very ominous. Makes for a very interesting image.
vsch1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:15 PM.