Rate the Photo Above you

[.spider.]

3 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

 

But of course you run the risk of this happening.  But hey, it's the risk you take as a tog.

 

That picture is much better than the other pictures you took. I really like it.

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

I am just getting back into photography now, please critique in a harsh constructive manner.  I want to improve, and I know I need to practice and try new techniques.

 

Photo taken in Mt. Revelstoke National Park in the Rocky Mountains.

 

Nikon D750 and 24-70 2.8 1/30 at F22 on tripod at 29mm.

[vanished]

22 minutes ago, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

I am just getting back into photography now, please critique in a harsh constructive manner.  I want to improve, and I know I need to practice and try new techniques.

 

Photo taken in Mt. Revelstoke National Park in the Rocky Mountains.

 

Nikon D750 and 24-70 2.8 1/30 at F22 on tripod at 29mm.

Beautiful  I think the right side, where the sky is bright and the trees are dark could "pop" a bit more if it was the other way around but idk if there's anything you can do about that, in camera or in post.

 

but F22 tho... jeez.  I know I can't get away with that with my lens ? It's supposed to keep everything in focus, but it just ends up making everything equally blurry  I bring it up because I think this shot may suffer from that as well.

[cc143]

4 hours ago, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

I am just getting back into photography now, please critique in a harsh constructive manner.  I want to improve, and I know I need to practice and try new techniques.

 

Photo taken in Mt. Revelstoke National Park in the Rocky Mountains.

 

Nikon D750 and 24-70 2.8 1/30 at F22 on tripod at 29mm.

At f/22 1/30th? What was your ISO at? Even for an overcast day, that sounds excessive. 

 

The composition is fine, maybe if you got the camera lower down, closer to the water surface, or even somewhat to the left, trying to get better exposure settings by sort of framing out the highlights. 

 

 as mentioned above, f/22 is far from optimal, I can see using f/11-f/16 max for a landscape, any further and you are actually losing image quality (As far as I understand it has to do with diffraction, but I haven't really looked into it myself.) 

 

What I would want to do in this case anyway is put a couple of nd filters on there, obviously there is no detail to preserve in the sky (i.e. no clouds etc), so a grad would only help with decreasing highlights, but I would like to smooth the water a bit in your place by using a slower shutter, not too much though, ~1 second to make the waves less discernible. 

 

I also can't tell if you used a polariser or if the water is so clear and in conjunction with the relatively fast shutter  and lighting you managed to get the effect somehow. 

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

4 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Beautiful  I think the right side, where the sky is bright and the trees are dark could "pop" a bit more if it was the other way around but idk if there's anything you can do about that, in camera or in post.

 

but F22 tho... jeez.  I know I can't get away with that with my lens ? It's supposed to keep everything in focus, but it just ends up making everything equally blurry  I bring it up because I think this shot may suffer from that as well.

I can try to edit and create a more uniform blue in the sky.  The sky has that weird look because right now in my area there are many large wildfires burning, and that haze is the product of this.  That being said, not really a challenge to fix with PS and LR.

 

I just learned something new about aperture, I will definitely keep that in mind in the future.  Thanks! 

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

36 minutes ago, cc143 said:

At f/22 1/30th? What was your ISO at? Even for an overcast day, that sounds excessive. 

 

The composition is fine, maybe if you got the camera lower down, closer to the water surface, or even somewhat to the left, trying to get better exposure settings by sort of framing out the highlights. 

 

 as mentioned above, f/22 is far from optimal, I can see using f/11-f/16 max for a landscape, any further and you are actually losing image quality (As far as I understand it has to do with diffraction, but I haven't really looked into it myself.) 

 

What I would want to do in this case anyway is put a couple of nd filters on there, obviously there is no detail to preserve in the sky (i.e. no clouds etc), so a grad would only help with decreasing highlights, but I would like to smooth the water a bit in your place by using a slower shutter, not too much though, ~1 second to make the waves less discernible. 

 

I also can't tell if you used a polariser or if the water is so clear and in conjunction with the relatively fast shutter  and lighting you managed to get the effect somehow. 

I think the ISO was at 160.

 

I forgot to mention in my original post, I combined four images to make this composition with photomerge in PS.  I was already in the water, and I couldn't get my tripod any lower without submerging the entire legs.

 

Thanks for the tip, I just checked the optimal aperture for the 24-70 and it is right around f/8-f/11. 

 

I have yet to buy any decent filters, and I do plan on it.  The photo(s) was taken right around 3pm, so the sun is still quite high and less-than-optimal for the 'perfect' photo.  The lake was remarkably clear, and the way the sun reflected made it even better to see through.

Lightroom has some filters and modifiers to edit specific parts of RAW files, so maybe I will try to use them to fix the lighting.

 

Thanks for the help!

[AkiraDaarkst]

6 hours ago, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

I am just getting back into photography now, please critique in a harsh constructive manner.  I want to improve, and I know I need to practice and try new techniques.

 

Photo taken in Mt. Revelstoke National Park in the Rocky Mountains.

 

Nikon D750 and 24-70 2.8 1/30 at F22 on tripod at 29mm.

This is a good photo and I second what other people have said about using some ND filters, I also suggest getting a CPL filter if you do landscapes.  While using smaller aperture openings like f/22 can negatively affect the image, you can still use them.  Just use your own judgement, additionally to get a relatively deep depth of field to try and get everything (close objects to objects in the distance in focus or at least reasonable sharp) you can use hyperfocal distance.

 

Since this looks like a fresh water lake and not salt water body, if you have a good tripod you can submerge the tripod legs in water.  Just rinse it well afterwards to remove any silt or other contaminants.  If you need to get into a better spot to get a better angle.  Just becareful not to drop the camera into the water of course.  Wader boots and pants that fishermen use can be very useful to own.

 

My only complaint about this photo could be the trees on the left, the ones that get cut off at the top.  Perhaps a wider angle lens?

[xQubeZx]

11 hours ago, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

I am just getting back into photography now, please critique in a harsh constructive manner.  I want to improve, and I know I need to practice and try new techniques.

 

Photo taken in Mt. Revelstoke National Park in the Rocky Mountains.

 

Nikon D750 and 24-70 2.8 1/30 at F22 on tripod at 29mm.

To me this is a pretty good shot. However I would have tried to get the treetops on the left in the image or framed so you wouldn't see them as much. This location may be awesome at sunset or sunrise too. I can see a really dramatic sky and this beautiful calm lake in the foreground. 

 

And about going down in the water. The tripod should handle it well, just be careful to not drop your camera. (In these times you really are happy you have a sturdy tripod, belive me.) I've been waist deep with my tripod without any troubles except for the damn cold water. If you are in salt water I would clean the tripod carefully after so it will last longer. Any half decent tripod should be easy to dissasemmble and clean each part by themselves. Only takes an hour or two. 

 

Oh, I usally have a camera strap on the camera that I wrap around my arm in situations like this. Because if somehow it starts to fall you have a saftey so you don't drop it in the water or at least not entirely in the water. 

[Klenex]

I just bought a Canon G9X Mark II (my first ever camera, besides smartphones), and I know virtually nothing about photography

 

So here goes:

"The Abandoned Chappel"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And of course the mandatory shot for a beginner photographer:

"Plants!"

 

 

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

7 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

This is a good photo and I second what other people have said about using some ND filters, I also suggest getting a CPL filter if you do landscapes.  While using smaller aperture openings like f/22 can negatively affect the image, you can still use them.  Just use your own judgement, additionally to get a relatively deep depth of field to try and get everything (close objects to objects in the distance in focus or at least reasonable sharp) you can use hyperfocal distance.

 

Since this looks like a fresh water lake and not salt water body, if you have a good tripod you can submerge the tripod legs in water.  Just rinse it well afterwards to remove any silt or other contaminants.  If you need to get into a better spot to get a better angle.  Just becareful not to drop the camera into the water of course.  Wader boots and pants that fishermen use can be very useful to own.

 

My only complaint about this photo could be the trees on the left, the ones that get cut off at the top.  Perhaps a wider angle lens?

Are there any filters that you would recommend?  I am looking to get a few before I leave.  I am did some reading and the 24-70 apparently performs the best at f/8-f/11, I will do my own testing, but until then I will try to keep the aperture around that.  I did forget about the hyperfocal technique-combining several images taken at different focus points to get a image that is in focus throughout.  I will try to utilize that more often.

 

The lake was fresh water, but I was short on time, but I was running out of time and I still had a short (6km) hike ahead of me.  I know I could have taken off my shoes and went deeper. 

 

The image was created by combining several images taken in portrait orientation, and to capture the tops of the trees I would need to also waste a large portion with the sky.

Since I am most interested in landscape/architecture photography, the 24-70 covers most of my uses, however i would still like to get a wider lens.

 

 

[vanished]

4 minutes ago, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

The image was created by combining several images taken in portrait orientation, and to capture the tops of the trees I would need to also waste a large portion with the sky.

Since I am most interested in landscape/architecture photography, the 24-70 covers most of my uses, however i would still like to get a wider lens.

Being able to go down to 18 or 16 would be nice, I think you'd notice it for sure.  Of course you can go farther but it starts getting tricky finding a location where it's appropriate, and setting it up takes even more thought.

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

2 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

To me this is a pretty good shot. However I would have tried to get the treetops on the left in the image or framed so you wouldn't see them as much. This location may be awesome at sunset or sunrise too. I can see a really dramatic sky and this beautiful calm lake in the foreground. 

 

And about going down in the water. The tripod should handle it well, just be careful to not drop your camera. (In these times you really are happy you have a sturdy tripod, belive me.) I've been waist deep with my tripod without any troubles except for the damn cold water. If you are in salt water I would clean the tripod carefully after so it will last longer. Any half decent tripod should be easy to dissasemmble and clean each part by themselves. Only takes an hour or two. 

 

Oh, I usally have a camera strap on the camera that I wrap around my arm in situations like this. Because if somehow it starts to fall you have a saftey so you don't drop it in the water or at least not entirely in the water. 

Most of the other photos I took on that hike had terrible harsh lighting due to the time of day.  I would have much preferred to be at the lake at sunrise/sunset, but that day it just wasn't possible.  I was imagining the same thing while taking this photo-how much better it would be at the golden hour.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I was running out of time and I didn't want to get wet.  If I had more time I should have, yet I cannot comment on my frame of mind at the time...

My tripod is an aluminum travel tripod with the twist locks (which I despise), and I impossible to disassemble.  I wasn't in salt water, so it was a non-issue.

 

That is a good tip, as I really don't want to test the "water resistance" Nikon promises.

 

Thanks for the help!

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Being able to go down to 18 or 16 would be nice, I think you'd notice it for sure.  Of course you can go farther but it starts getting tricky finding a location where it's appropriate, and setting it up takes even more thought.

I am trying to evolve my photography into a more patient and thoughtful process, vs. the run-and-gun technique that hasn't served me well for landscapes.   I am casually looking at used gear in my area, so if a see a decent option I could go for it.

[AkiraDaarkst]

23 minutes ago, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

Are there any filters that you would recommend?  I am looking to get a few before I leave.  I am did some reading and the 24-70 apparently performs the best at f/8-f/11, I will do my own testing, but until then I will try to keep the aperture around that.  I did forget about the hyperfocal technique-combining several images taken at different focus points to get a image that is in focus throughout.  I will try to utilize that more often.

 

The lake was fresh water, but I was short on time, but I was running out of time and I still had a short (6km) hike ahead of me.  I know I could have taken off my shoes and went deeper. 

 

The image was created by combining several images taken in portrait orientation, and to capture the tops of the trees I would need to also waste a large portion with the sky.

Since I am most interested in landscape/architecture photography, the 24-70 covers most of my uses, however i would still like to get a wider lens.

 

 

HiTechFormatt or Lee filters, they sell starter kits that you can build upon as you go.  Cokin also makes good filters but you need to invest in the P or Z system.  There are also new brands that are gaining traction but I don't know their names or have first hand experience with them.  Singh-ray is just too expensive.

 

Hyperfocal distance and focus stacking are two different techniques.  Hyperfocal distance uses a narrow aperture and lens focusing distance to try and get everything from distance A to distance B in reasonbly sharp focus.  Focus stacking is where you take photos at different focus distances and merge them to get one image with very deep depth of field.

[xQubeZx]

One of my recent shots after spending the latest 1.5 weeks in the Italian and Swiss alps. (Had family members that ran the Swiss Alpine 78K so we needed to high altitude acclimatizie for a week, which I didn't complain about.) Have a looot of images to go through and edit but here is one of many. 

 

It's shot during the afternoon so had quite harsh light so I decided to go with a quite contrasty look to compensate for that. It just gets washed out if you try to go for a more soft light. Kinda like the high contrast look though. Image taken on one of the mountains surronding Davos in Switzerland. Can't  remember the name now. 

[gleetk]

Less about colour that i'm curious about and more so framing. Photo is from Vancouver Port, Aug 1st 2017's morning sun. The red haze is not done by editing but actually from smoke clouds caused by wildfires in the region of 100-Mile House, in British Columbia. Lens is a 10-22mm Sigma EF, photo at 15mm F4.3 on a 100D

[Bolero629]

I just got into photography less then a month ago and I want harsh criticism. Shot on Canon Rebel XSi with an 18-55 mm EFS lens

[vanished]

34 minutes ago, Bolero629 said:

I just got into photography less then a month ago and I want harsh criticism. Shot on Canon Rebel XSi with an 18-55 mm EFS lens

• I think it's a bit under exposed actually but I can't be sure without seeing it turned up.
• I think the red was captured well - you will find that some flowers don't work so well, and tbh I'm not entirely sure why, but I think it either has something to do with the autoexposure picking a bad value, or the colour of the flower being so vibrant that it's outside the colour space you're shooting in.
• I would choose a different framing; centring it like that is kind of boring imo
• The water drops on it are a nice touch, natural or artificial.  Many will tell you if you're setting up a shot, add some yourself if it isn't already wet  
• Pay attention to where you're focusing.  I think you got that right but it can be easy to miss when you have a shallow depth of field, especially on an item that might blow around in the wind.

[Bolero629]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

• I think it's a bit under exposed actually but I can't be sure without seeing it turned up.
• I think the red was captured well - you will find that some flowers don't work so well, and tbh I'm not entirely sure why, but I think it either has something to do with the autoexposure picking a bad value, or the colour of the flower being so vibrant that it's outside the colour space you're shooting in.
• I would choose a different framing; centring it like that is kind of boring imo
• The water drops on it are a nice touch, natural or artificial.  Many will tell you if you're setting up a shot, add some yourself if it isn't already wet  
• Pay attention to where you're focusing.  I think you got that right but it can be easy to miss when you have a shallow depth of field, especially on an item that might blow around in the wind.

Thanks! I shot in f13 so I could have a deeper depth of field and I bumped the ISO as high as it would go before I saw grain and the shutter speed at 1/30 so it didn't move and blur the image so I can't really fix the exposure without editing it.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Bolero629 said:

Thanks! I shot in f13 so I could have a deeper depth of field and I bumped the ISO as high as it would go before I saw grain and the shutter speed at 1/30 so it didn't move and blur the image so I can't really fix the exposure without editing it.

Personally I would try picking the slowest shutter you think you can get away with, and then take many shots, since odds are one will be without blur - it might let you use a lower ISO

[Bolero629]

24 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Personally I would try picking the slowest shutter you think you can get away with, and then take many shots, since odds are one will be without blur - it might let you use a lower ISO

Alright i'll look into it

[Darren319]

I love the photo of the barn and the sun, it's wonderful how the sun comes through the trees. I would only like to see a deeper red on the barn.

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

On 8/1/2017 at 9:22 AM, AkiraDaarkst said:

HiTechFormatt or Lee filters, they sell starter kits that you can build upon as you go.  Cokin also makes good filters but you need to invest in the P or Z system.  There are also new brands that are gaining traction but I don't know their names or have first hand experience with them.  Singh-ray is just too expensive.

 

Hyperfocal distance and focus stacking are two different techniques.  Hyperfocal distance uses a narrow aperture and lens focusing distance to try and get everything from distance A to distance B in reasonbly sharp focus.  Focus stacking is where you take photos at different focus distances and merge them to get one image with very deep depth of field.

So I've been doing some shopping, and I have looked at the options that Lee and FormattHitech offer, and none stand out as particularly a good value or option.  What am I missing?  I really only need graduated and a some solid ND filters with the holder.

 

I am using a bicycle as my main mode of transport while traveling for the next couple of years, so I want my kit to be light and compact.  Now getting to the point, I need a good budget carbon fiber tripod to support a full-size DSLR.  In my searches I have come across this option from B&H, and it looks pretty good with decent reviews.  My budget is around up to $350 CAD.  I can spend more if absolutely required. 

 

 

[cc143]

49 minutes ago, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

So I've been doing some shopping, and I have looked at the options that Lee and FormattHitech offer, and none stand out as particularly a good value or option.  What am I missing?  I really only need graduated and a some solid ND filters with the holder.

 

I am using a bicycle as my main mode of transport while traveling for the next couple of years, so I want my kit to be light and compact.  Now getting to the point, I need a good budget carbon fiber tripod to support a full-size DSLR.  In my searches I have come across this option from B&H, and it looks pretty good with decent reviews.  My budget is around up to $350 CAD.  I can spend more if absolutely required. 

 

 

Make a thread about these stuff so as to avoid hijacking this one. 

 

In short: I doubt 350CAD is enough for a good carbon tripod. I would for the 3LT Albert, I have had it for a year now and it goes with me anywhere. The one I bought 5 months before buying this one on the other hand was a complete waste of money. So don't cheap out. 

 

Formatt hitech tends to be cheaper than lee so you could just go with them. The filter systems are worth the money. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

On 8/7/2017 at 5:25 AM, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

In my searches I have come across this option from B&H, and it looks pretty good with decent reviews.

My concern for that CF tripod you found on B&H would be the overall length when compacted/folded.  18 inches.  Since you will be carrying it around with a cycle just make sure you are able to safely and comfortably carry the tripod.

On 8/7/2017 at 6:17 AM, cc143 said:

In short: I doubt 350CAD is enough for a good carbon tripod. I would for the 3LT Albert, I have had it for a year now and it goes with me anywhere. The one I bought 5 months before buying this one on the other hand was a complete waste of money. So don't cheap out. 

CF tripods do not necessarily have to be expensive... but cheap ones may suffer from low quality CF or just bad build quality (especially around the joints).