High ISO BW Pics

[Ramblinman]

I decided to take advantage of the snowstorm that passed this Friday and take some pics in a local nature preserve.

These pics were taken at ISO3200 using a polarizer lens




This pic looks better in color

[jacsul]

#2&3 look best IMO

[Sahil]

I second Jack. #2,3 look good. However the signature is too distracting. And IMO, cropping out the half of the foreground in #2 pic will make it even better. Just saying.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Paul,

I have to say I am not a fan of watermarking, sure I went through that stage myself, but I got past it with help from the good people here.

The bottom line is: when you sit back and view the shots above, especially the monochrome ones; what do you see first?
Now, when you pressed the shutter, was that your intention?

I could go into to the reasons some more, but it has been said before and I think with 'fresh eyes', you'll see what I mean, so I won't labor the point.

I like the intent of #1 and the balancing light patch in bottom right corner for the snow top left and the subject.

#2 has the unfortunate effect of the trees all leaning - I assume because of the prevailing wind, I tend to agree with Sahil about there being just a little too much foreground, if nothing else, it has put the (horizontal) snow horizon 1/2 way up the frame.

#3 might have been a better shot in 30 minutes, with a tad more sun on the foreground rock, but I like the perspective and composition.

A good series.

Cheers,

[Terry Tedor]

I like 2, but agree with all about the comp. Either all of the near footprint or none. The color watermark on the B&W is indeed disctracting.

[Ramblinman]

I appreciate the critiques.

As for the watermarking, should I or shouldnt I leave it out of all my pictures. If I should keep it in, what would be the ideal font size? As for the shots itself, I tried to go for the moody, grainy B&W shots of leafless trees, snow and Isolation. Since the weather was sunny and calm, I may not have been able to pull that off.

The second picture with the foreground snow, I did not have the luxury of looking through the viewfinder I just kind of leaned over and hoped for the best. The trees in the background are naturally crooked. I can work on the composition in lightroom to fix it up.

[Colin Southern]

As for the watermarking, should I or shouldnt I leave it out of all my pictures.

In my opinion, watermarking often ruins an image for 100% of the people whilst only providing a minor barrier to an incredibly small minority who may want to steal your images. Just not worth it in my opinion. It's a bit like buying a $500,000 Ferrari, and then keeping it locked up in the garage all the time in case someone scratches it; kinda defeats the purpose of having it in the first place.

Here's a 15 second example to illustrate my point (hope you don't mind!)

[carregwen]

As for the watermarking, should I or shouldnt I leave it out of all my pictures...

I have problems enough selling my own pictures when I have access to a full resolution 25mb PSD/TIFF file and a high quality printer. How someone could sell a ripped-off low-resolution 250k image downloaded from the internet doesn't bear thinking about. Of course, someone could just use one of your images, perhaps on a website, or in a brochure, but is that really a loss? A much greater problem, I think, would be having to take your PC to a dodgy repair shop and leaving it there. All of your shots could be copied in a few minutes. But now I'm just getting paranoid...

EDIT: I need to qualify that. Most repair shops are excellent, and do a great job. But I did have problems with one once (copying stuff), and I am always wary.

[jacsul]

Napster!!! Lars, remember Napster...