Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Landscape Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 13, 2004, 11:02 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Great location, wish I was there!

The water level can easily be made to be at the 1/3 level by cropping. What is harder to correct is the blown out highlights in the clouds. That 's a tricky thing though. If you expose for the clouds, the rest might get too dark. There are techniques (and even PS plugins) to take two images, one exposed for the clouds, and one exposed for the rest, and merge them together into one higher dynamic range image. Those images will have to be taken from a tripod so they align.

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2004, 6:14 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
stephendickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 208
Default

Barthold,

Do you know where I would find such a plug-in?

Regards,

Steve

PS: Sorry to interupt on the topic!
stephendickey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2004, 9:52 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 110
Default

My first visit here, looks a great BB


I think ClearPhoto has the image about right (OK adjust the horizon to get it level and lower it a little but probably needs a bit more water than lowering it to a 3rd). The large body of water acts to balance the large land mass on each side and the horizon near the center, helps draw the eye to the meeting of the 2 cliffs in shadow with the water and the sun lit view beyond. The composition is very strong but as mentioned by Barthold, the highlights are too blown out and I also find the cliffs a little too dark. A good landscape shot.


Steve, Clearphoto
Not seen a plug-in but if you want to understand the technique mentioned by Barthold it’s called “Blended Exposures”. You can find a good tutorial here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...xposures.shtml. Also check out “Contrast Masking” here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu..._masking.shtml.

You can get a good effect by processing the same image twice in a scanner if film or from a RAW file, producing one version with good highlights and one with good shadow detail.
costas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2004, 9:43 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Hum same eye, using my right alone rotates the image a few degrees clockwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herb
Peter - I don't know about you, but I can confirm that some of us really do have naturally twisted vision. I don't notice it when I'm using both eyes, but whenever I use my right eye alone, it rotates my view about 5 degrees counter-clockwise. This makes it very difficult to hold my camera level, because my right eye is the dominant one and I automatically use it when looking through the viewfinder.

If anybody wants to test for this, just look at something vertical like a power pole or the edge of a wall: then cover first one eye and then the other with your hand. Move your hand to and fro and see whether the thing you're looking at changes it's angle.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2004, 10:54 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

In all fairness, regarding the blown highlights, today I was noticing some nearby snow-capped mountains surrounded by pale white clouds on an otherwise dreary winter Oregon sky and realized that there is no way to capture the total tonal range my eyes were seeing. The highlights looked blown to my eye, so I know the camera couldn't capture them. Short of taking two shots, one exposing for the highlights and another exposing for the shadows then merging them together, the shot would be well outside the range of flim, much less slide or digital.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2004, 8:06 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Quote:
I have found that the best way to check a horizon is simply to draw a rectangular selection box along it.
I like dragging in guidelines, then rotating the photo until it's parallel with these lines.

Ohenry: Though I think the situation you described is bordering on the give-up-and-find-another-pic category, sometimes you can copy and paste the photo on top of itself, then use "Multiply," adjusting opacity until it's nearly right, and finally, erasing parts of that second layer where necessary to reveal the background layer. Every now and then, it can rescue a photo.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2004, 9:47 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Yes, I've used a similar method with the multiply feature to pull out some shadows.

The vesatility of Photoshop continues to amaze me and experimenting comes up with some really interesting results. Unfortunately, I normally forget how I accomplish the results :lol: Thank goodness for history states
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2004, 1:03 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephendickey
Barthold,

Do you know where I would find such a plug-in?
Here you go, hope you like reading :-)

Barthold

http://www.fredmiranda.com/article_1/
http://www.fredmiranda.com/DRI/index.html
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...xposures.shtml
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...blending.shtml
http://www.bardill.net/projects/phot...dynamic-range/
http://www.erik-krause.de/blending/
http://www.multimediaphoto.com/photomatix/index.html
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2004, 1:48 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
Default

Ohenri, et al., a yes, the problem with tonal range (or its lack, rather), aka lattitude, is also my biggest complaint about the digital medium--and it was the first thing I was going to comment about re: the Lake Louise photo.
About the only thing I've personally found of any help (I haven't tried ND filters yet) is to use the camera's built-in contrast control and lower the contrast by as many steps as necessary (and often that's still not enough), then expose for the white clouds, but give them a step of so of additional exposure compensation.

I did spring for a polarizing filter recently, and that helps tone down hot spots, but once again, a EVF is terrible for trying to judge when the hot spots have actually cooled off--about the only alternatives are to continually remove the filter and turn it in front of my eye, then reinstall it and hopefully remember where the position is, or else use P mode and watch the exposure time as I turn the filter; I can sometimes tell when the filter is cutting down the glare by watching the shutter time.
Norm in Fujino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2004, 8:17 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Norm, a polarizing filter is something I keep promising to buy but I keep putting it off in favor of other things. What brand and type did you get and are you happy with it?
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 AM.