From a walk in the woods

[Mike Buckley]

My wife and I took the most enjoyable walk in the woods this weekend that provided a variety of scenes to enjoy.

Photo #1



Photo #2



Photo #3



Photo #4



Photo #5

[marlunn]

Nice set Mike, for me #3 and #4 catch me the most - #3 to understand the background to the shadows, tree bark, but what tree? and #4 as an abstract, love the colours and the light with shadows.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Mark! Sorry, but I have no idea what kind of tree is in #3.

[Marie Hass]

He, he, he. Mike, do you think the "tree" may be poison ivy?. Note the three leaves?

'Rie

[Otavio]

Mike, you managed to produce great images out of ordinary elements and situations that many would not pay attention to. That is a virtue. That is one of the things I like most about photography.

Well done!

[Shadowman]

Nice series.

[Brownbear]

Indeed it is very nice to see how to create wonderful images out of ordinary scenes.

I was going to say that my fave was the 4th image for the beautiful colours and patterns but I've changed my mind. It's #3! Very unusual and intriguing, for the varying shades of colour and the peek at the details of the rock/wall surface through the reflection of the leaves.

[Brownbear]

Indeed it is very nice to see how to create wonderful images out of ordinary scenes.

I was going to say that my fave was the 4th image for the beautiful colours and patterns but I've changed my mind. It's #3! Very unusual and intriguing, for the varying shades of colour and the peek at the details of the rock/wall surface through the reflection of the leaves.

[KimC]

Really like the 4th image...it makes me ponder the reflection.

[Rita]

I really like #3 because although I know what it is it still makes me wonder about what it is that is making
the shadow. I also like #4. In #4 I am wondering if you flipped it 180 to make the reflection look like an artsy right side
up image. Would that work?

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you, everyone!

I'm especially intrigued by a few people mentioning the image of the shadows of the leaves on the tree bark because that kind of artsy photo is not prevalent here at CiC. I'm glad that I made the photo and am particularly happy that it's appealing to others as well. If those leaves creating the shadows are poison ivy as Marie suggests, I'm happy to report that neither my wife nor I touched them.

A few people mentioned photo #4 of the reflections. I, like Rita, wondered if it and two other similar images would work after rotating them 180 degrees. Doing that didn't work for me. As for the post-processing, I did something new to me: I applied a small amount of Guassian blur to the entire image to emphasize the impressionistic style and then applied a smaller than usual amount of sharpening. By the way, everything in the image is a reflection except for possibly (I really don't know) three very small leaves that might have drifted by on the surface.

A couple people mentioned that this series demonstrates that rather ordinary events such as our Sunday afternoon walk can produce enjoyable photos. The context for me is that whether my wife and I are traveling, taking a walk or a strenuous hike, our goal is that we enjoy the moment rather than that we make enjoyable photos; the keepers, if there are any, are only icing on the cake. We were fortunate in this case to have a little bit of icing.

[mknittle]

All very nice Mike, I think maybe the attraction to #3 may be It leaves something to the imagination?

[bnnrcn]

Hi Mike, I love this type of photography, thanks for sharing May I ask if you used a polarizer for #1 and #4?

[FootLoose]

The third is my favourite of the set, too. Lines, shapes, texture, light: the key ingredients of great photos.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you, everyone!

Binnur asked if I used a polarizer on #1 and #4. I used a polarizer on all of these photos and on almost all photos I captured during the walk. The only time that I didn't use a polarizer is when there was no glare and I wanted the lower ISO value that was possible when removing it. In the case of #1 and #4, it's very possible that I could have made the same images without using the polarizer but didn't try it. (Enjoying the walk was more important than taking lots of time to try various photo alternatives.) That's because turning the polarizer to its "strongest" position can negatively impact the reflections, so I always turned it to its "weakest" position when I was photographing reflections in the water. That "weakest" position may have resulted in the same appearance as using no polarizer.

[Mike Buckley]

A follow-up to the discussion of using the polarizer:

A polarizer blocks about 1 1/2 to 2 stops of light. When shooting scenes like these handheld as in these cases, I always use the Auto ISO function and Aperture Priority. When using a polarizer and those settings, if the camera can achieve the desired exposure only by increasing the ISO value, it may be increased by those 1 1/2 to 2 stops. Another way of saying it is that the ISO value may become about 3 to 4 times higher than if the polarizer wasn't being used.

The ISO values of the above images are:
#1: 3200
#2: 4000
#3: 125
#4: 4000
#5: 1600

Some would consider it sacrilege to shoot at such high ISO values but that's not my thinking. I don't plan on making large prints of these, so I'm not concerned about noise unless it's present when displayed at 30% or less. (Only the last image had noise when displayed at 30%, which is considerably larger than when the images are displayed on the Internet.) My camera's sensor produces relatively little noise in a typical scene when the exposure is "accurate," as demonstrated by the lack of noise in these images taken at fairly high though not extreme ISO values. As for the argument that the dynamic range is decreased when the ISO value is increased, I've never personally experienced any practical issue with that compared to photographing the same scene without a polarizer. If the image was so important that I would print it, I assume the dynamic range of the print would be the more limiting factor but perhaps others with technical knowledge about this can correct me.

[thecraig]

There's something in shot #5 that stirs some emotion. The plain, simple line heading into the dark of the forest.

I like it.

And a good job you had your wife as a "spotter" for that shot.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Mark. Knowing that #5 stirs some emotion is the highest compliment about a photo I could ever receive.

[chauncey]

Mike, based in part where you live, I would guess that the leaf in #3 is a chestnut...maybe.
It always pleases me to see another elderly gentleman taking pretty pictures.

On another front, your use of a polarized filter and the associated need for increasing the ISO.
Could you not replicate the effect in PP without the ISO boost.

[Mike Buckley]

elderly gentleman

In my case you got the first word correct, not the second one.

Coincidentally, just yesterday I explained to my wife that I'm in a quandary about my age. When I began cataloging the age of people in my photos, I determined that an "adult" would be anyone 20 - 60 years old. Anyone older than that would be a "senior citizen." When I turned 60, I changed my catalog so an adult would be anyone 20 - 64 years old. Now that I am coming up on my 64th birthday and remain in denial about my age, I'm wondering if I should change that again to be anyone 20 - 70 years old.

On another front, your use of a polarized filter and the associated need for increasing the ISO. Could you not replicate the effect in PP without the ISO boost.

The impact on the sky can be replicated easily during post-processing. Not nearly so easily when minimizing or eliminating the glare on leaves, blades of grass, tree bark, rocks and the like. I took the time to do that once and swore that I would never do it again.

More important, hopefully my explanation is clear enough to understand why I have little to no concern about the higher ISO. If I was instead shooting with the intention of making a large print, I would be using a tripod and the base ISO, not Auto ISO.