2019 P52 - 1st Qtr - Sandy(Skitterbug)

[Shadowman]

Post #60, nice effort but I would've focused more on the trees with just a sliver of the river showing, as displayed the cropped trees make the composition look hurried or included by mistake.

[Geoff F]

I was thinking along similar lines; but I think you can still make the river into a major component of this scene. The foreground part of the river is a bit soft so I wonder about a slight crop from the bottom and going to a widescreen ratio so the rougher part of the river now becomes the foreground where it has more impact?

The actual technical aspect of a tricky situation has worked well.

[Cantab]

Sandy, when I first saw this photo my entire attention was focused on the fast flowing and flooding river. For me a key purpose of the far shore was simply to show that the river had risen and was lapping at the roots of trees which were probably usually not so close to the water. I take John's comment about the cropped trees but that did not bother me since my focus was on the water.

[skitterbug]

Post #60, nice effort but I would've focused more on the trees with just a sliver of the river showing, as displayed the cropped trees make the composition look hurried or included by mistake.

Hi John - I never thought about focusing more on the trees and less on the river. There wasn't much about the tree stand that made it interesting to me. I was more keen to show how the water was flowing - with white caps even! I appreciate your perspective and when I get back to this river, I'll take a look at it that way! Oh and the reason I included any trees was because I wanted to define where the bank of the river was?

[skitterbug]

I was thinking along similar lines; but I think you can still make the river into a major component of this scene. The foreground part of the river is a bit soft so I wonder about a slight crop from the bottom and going to a widescreen ratio so the rougher part of the river now becomes the foreground where it has more impact?

The actual technical aspect of a tricky situation has worked well.

Hi Geoff - I could probably crop a bit off the bottom and still not narrow the river too much. I'll play with your suggestion and see how it goes! Thanks!

[skitterbug]

Sandy, when I first saw this photo my entire attention was focused on the fast flowing and flooding river. For me a key purpose of the far shore was simply to show that the river had risen and was lapping at the roots of trees which were probably usually not so close to the water. I take John's comment about the cropped trees but that did not bother me since my focus was on the water.

Hi Bruce - This was indeed my intent but perhaps if I'd have included a bit more of the trees rather than cutting them off at "their knees", it might have been a bit better! Mostly, I was trying to capture the rush and bounce of the water. We'd had lots of rain so you are correct in guessing that it was higher than normal.

I appreciate your comments!

[Shadowman]

Hi John - I never thought about focusing more on the trees and less on the river. There wasn't much about the tree stand that made it interesting to me. I was more keen to show how the water was flowing - with white caps even! I appreciate your perspective and when I get back to this river, I'll take a look at it that way! Oh and the reason I included any trees was because I wanted to define where the bank of the river was?

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for responding, as you said you weren't prepared clothing wise to really work the scene, if trying to emphasize the waves a lower angle would've done it. One additional item I plan to include on some excursions is a collapsible wooden stool which I can use for lower angle views.

[skitterbug]

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for responding, as you said you weren't prepared clothing wise to really work the scene, if trying to emphasize the waves a lower angle would've done it. One additional item I plan to include on some excursions is a collapsible wooden stool which I can use for lower angle views.

Hi John - I like the idea of something to sit on. It was muddy and soft though so I can see being stuck! <chuckle> It is sad that I'm not agile as I used to be! <sigh>

So I gave the crop another try and came up with this one. I rotated the image slightly and reduced the tree line as well as the foreground so the trees don't look so chopped. And then I did apply a bit of selective sharpening. Better? or Worse?

[Rufus]

There is much better definition in the water now, the fast flow is more apparent and the water is generally more interesting.

A shot at an angle across the river might be worth trying as well next time.

[Shadowman]

There is much better definition in the water now, the fast flow is more apparent and the water is generally more interesting.

A shot at an angle across the river might be worth trying as well next time.

Much better.

[skitterbug]

Much better.

Thanks John!

There is much better definition in the water now, the fast flow is more apparent and the water is generally more interesting.
A shot at an angle across the river might be worth trying as well next time.

I need to check what is actually across on the other side. The woods may be more interesting in the spring. Thanks for commenting David!

[Manfred M]

Sandy the main issue I have with your river image is that it doesn't have a centre of interest, so there is nothing that pulls the viewer's eye into the image.

When that happens, the image is generally not going to work all that well.

[skitterbug]

Sandy the main issue I have with your river image is that it doesn't have a centre of interest, so there is nothing that pulls the viewer's eye into the image.

When that happens, the image is generally not going to work all that well.

Hi Manfred - Originally, I was looking for rocks since water flowing over and around them cause swirls/ripples and the like. I ended up settling for white caps, etc. That's what I see when I look at the image. I'll have to rethink the scene the next time I try it. I'm working on an image for week 3 that is of a different river and hopefully, it will be better. Thanks for expressing your opinion. It helps!

[skitterbug]

Week 3 - So I am back to rivers. This is a different one that we pass over while heading to the local town for errands. Hubby stopped the vehicle so I could try an image that I've wanted for awhile. No traffic to bother us! That's a treat! There are even ducks on the right edge by the bank that I missed when I was setting up my shot.

it was still very dreary. I guess I can expect that since it is winter in our area.

I used settings of ISO100 - f/8 - 1/250 since what snow there is makes it bright but the results were darker than I expected. I probably should have used a more open aperture.

Original photo




I received the screen profiler today (X-rite Colormunki/display) and gave it a try. I have questions but I'll post them in the thread about profiling equipment). What I did notice right off was the change in the screen's brightness. There was also a difference in the shade of blue that I have for the "desktop". So it apparently made adjustments! Now if it improves my ability to spot color problems, I'll be a happy camper! I'll also be curious to see how it prints. (I decided to get the Canon Pixma Pro-100 since the company was basically giving them away with the rebate offer.)

I'm anxious for opinions. Thanks!

After PP

[Urbanflyer]

Week 3 - So I am back to rivers. This is a different one that we pass over while heading to the local town for errands. Hubby stopped the vehicle so I could try an image that I've wanted for awhile. No traffic to bother us! That's a treat! There are even ducks on the right edge by the bank that I missed when I was setting up my shot.

it was still very dreary. I guess I can expect that since it is winter in our area.

I used settings of ISO100 - f/8 - 1/250 since what snow there is makes it bright but the results were darker than I expected. I probably should have used a more open aperture.

Original photo




I received the screen profiler today (X-rite Colormunki/display) and gave it a try. I have questions but I'll post them in the thread about profiling equipment). What I did notice right off was the change in the screen's brightness. There was also a difference in the shade of blue that I have for the "desktop". So it apparently made adjustments! Now if it improves my ability to spot color problems, I'll be a happy camper! I'll also be curious to see how it prints. (I decided to get the Canon Pixma Pro-100 since the company was basically giving them away with the rebate offer.)

I'm anxious for opinions. Thanks!

After PP

Fun to see you experimenting!

[Manfred M]

Sandy - how did you determine your exposure? That shot is badly underexposed; snow is white and not middle gray.

[skitterbug]

Sandy - how did you determine your exposure? That shot is badly underexposed; snow is white and not middle gray.

Hi Manfred - I used the camera's light meter to adjust the camera's settings. As you can see the original is too dark.

On my screen, the snow looks white. So now I'm puzzled???

[skitterbug]

Fun to see you experimenting!

Hi Judith - I'm having some frustrating moments but yes, I really do enjoy trying to figure things out. I appreciate the support! Thanks for commenting!

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred - I used the camera's light meter to adjust the camera's settings. As you can see the original is too dark.

On my screen, the snow looks white. So now I'm puzzled???

Sorry that I wasn't clear. I'm referring to the original capture, prior to you processing the image.

It's a gray overcast day, so under those conditions the snow will look white and the brightest areas will show having a value that is close to 255, 255, 255. When I look at the shot, the snow in those areas looks just a touch brighter than middle gray.
Dropping a color sampler on that area confirms my suspiciion.




The problem with snow scapes is that these tend to fool your camera's metering system and the underexposure tends to result. In scenes where I know exposure is going to be a bit problematic, I will have a quick look at the histogram that my camera produces and if the right hand side is not all that close to the right hand side, I will use the exposure compensation control to override the camera's metering system and force the camera to give me a better exposure. In conditions like the one you were shooting under, I would probably do a test shot with exposure compensation set to +0.7 to see what that gives me. If it were bright and sunny out, I would dial in even more to start; perhaps +1.3 and do a test shot.






The exposure on your final image is better, although the version I am viewing suggests that the sky has been blown out, so I would tune that part of the image. When I open your final image in Adobe Camera Raw, the red area shows where the highlights have been clipped.

[skitterbug]

Sorry that I wasn't clear. I'm referring to the original capture, prior to you processing the image.

It's a gray overcast day, so under those conditions the snow will look white and the brightest areas will show having a value that is close to 255, 255, 255. When I look at the shot, the snow in those areas looks just a touch brighter than middle gray.
Dropping a color sampler on that area confirms my suspiciion.

I don't have the same PP app as you do. When I look at it in LightRoom (desktop), it shows the value in percent (50.5%,50.3%,50.9%) so I'm going to assume this matches fairly closely the area you were choosing.
Affinity Photo doesn't give any values.... I'm not happy about that and will need to question them about it.

The problem with snow scapes is that these tend to fool your camera's metering system and the underexposure tends to result. In scenes where I know exposure is going to be a bit problematic, I will have a quick look at the histogram that my camera produces and if the right hand side is not all that close to the right hand side, I will use the exposure compensation control to override the camera's metering system and force the camera to give me a better exposure. In conditions like the one you were shooting under, I would probably do a test shot with exposure compensation set to +0.7 to see what that gives me. If it were bright and sunny out, I would dial in even more to start; perhaps +1.3 and do a test shot.

I'll experiment a bit with the exposure compensation. Would the use of a white balance card help? And there again, I'm not really familiar about how to put the results from a image with a white balance card in use, and apply it to the rest of the photos.... more studying required probably...
I like the idea of the adjustments and use of histogram and I'll give that some practice.

The exposure on your final image is better, although the version I am viewing suggests that the sky has been blown out, so I would tune that part of the image. When I open your final image in Adobe Camera Raw, the red area shows where the highlights have been clipped.

I've had the blown out sky problem before. Is the only way to correct this problem through the use of stacking? Or how do you overcome it? This is probably a beginner's question but its baffled me.

Thank you for your comprehensive reply. I appreciate the help!