Tried my hands on digital landscapes....for C&C

[IzzieK]

I love the 2nd shot, Izzie, and as Mike has pointed out, there are three objects in the sky. The rule of odds doesn't require all objects to be of the same kind.

Thanks for clarifying the rule of odds...so many things to remember looking at images after uploading it in the pooter...but it is nice to know...I appreciate your help and comments.

[IzzieK]

You just have one thing wrong with your reply, I am far from being a professional

OK...I like to think you are a professional and no matter how you call yourself, I still value your opinion because it gives me the heebeejibbies excitement reading your thoughts on my shots too. Honest!

[IzzieK]

Very nice shots Izzie, I wouldn't have cropped the tree out from the first one though.

Now I realize...I think it looks better with it anyway but I tried...wrong try. All my fault...I thought I can do it well...

Thanks for the comments, Matt...and for making me feel a little bit guilty about that tree chopping... 'Appreciate your thoughts.

[IzzieK]

Thank you Izzie. I was interested in the exposure time, aperture and ISO.
The reason that I asked is because every time that I tried to shoot the sun I end up with mostly huge flares! One more question: Why did you select such high ISO? (Not that it hurt you photo)
My exif viewer doesn't seem to detect the info on your shots.

Andre

Andre...when in Cedar Key, when it says "dark" -- it really means DARK, all caps. That is why the high ISO. In image #1, I just brighten it a little bit because of the clouds that I wanted to include into the picture. This place is the reason why I bought that UWA lens in the first place as I really intended to use it on small cramp place we might go to. The places we went, but the photographing not much for some excuse or the other.

Flares...I nearly had flares there too and I was looking closely so I turned my camera a little bit away from the sun until the flare on the viewfinder disappeared, just a tad away, not too much. The lens hood helps too...If you looked at the EXIF, the first image was shot about 15 minutes earlier than the second one which was taken just as the sun was rising. I used my longer 150-500mm on the second shot with the sun because I had intended to do some birding while everyone was still asleep. Silly birds did not come out until much later and the rest of the household started marching in. There goes the "aloneness" I was guarding jealously. I can't stand people yapping around me when I am working my shot. The 15 minute gap was to make and serve coffee to my master (Bill) whom I enjoy being with me when I do my shoots. He usually keeps his trap shut and way away from my tripod.

P.S. I always have my lens hoods on a belt-like loop near me to watch for lens flare. If it does not occur on the viewfinder, I do not use it. If it does, on it goes on the camera. The belt-like loop holding my hoods can also be attach outside my backpack for carrying convenience .

Thanks for the extra comments...'do appreciate your interest.

[Mike Buckley]

when in Cedar Key, when it says "dark" -- it really means DARK, all caps. That is why the high ISO.

Regardless of how dark it seems (your scene was actually quite bright because you were shooting toward the sun), always shoot at the lowest possible ISO. In the second scene, you used ISO 1600, a shutter speed of 1/8000 and a focal length of 150mm. You could have made the same exposure using ISO 100 and a shutter speed of 1/500. That shutter speed would have been fast enough for hand holding a 150mm focal length even if you weren't using image stabilization.

[Round Tuit]

Andre...when in Cedar Key, when it says "dark" -- it really means DARK, all caps. That is why the high ISO. In image #1, I just brighten it a little bit because of the clouds that I wanted to include into the picture. This place is the reason why I bought that UWA lens in the first place as I really intended to use it on small cramp place we might go to. The places we went, but the photographing not much for some excuse or the other.

Flares...I nearly had flares there too and I was looking closely so I turned my camera a little bit away from the sun until the flare on the viewfinder disappeared, just a tad away, not too much. The lens hood helps too...If you looked at the EXIF, the first image was shot about 15 minutes earlier than the second one which was taken just as the sun was rising. I used my longer 150-500mm on the second shot with the sun because I had intended to do some birding while everyone was still asleep. Silly birds did not come out until much later and the rest of the household started marching in. There goes the "aloneness" I was guarding jealously. I can't stand people yapping around me when I am working my shot. The 15 minute gap was to make and serve coffee to my master (Bill) whom I enjoy being with me when I do my shoots. He usually keeps his trap shut and way away from my tripod.

P.S. I always have my lens hoods on a belt-like loop near me to watch for lens flare. If it does not occur on the viewfinder, I do not use it. If it does, on it goes on the camera. The belt-like loop holding my hoods can also be attach outside my backpack for carrying convenience .

Thanks for the extra comments...'do appreciate your interest.

Izzie,

Thanks for the tip on how to deal with flare. Much appreciated.
I am still puzzled about your choice of ISO because the EXIF that you posted shows an exposure of 1/8000 sec at f16. With those settings you had plenty of room to drop the ISO from 1600 to 200 or even 100. You obviously have a much better camera than I do because with mine, ISO 800 is so noisy as to be almost unusable. This is why I keep mine set to 100 and only raise it if absolutely necessary.

Andre

[bnnrcn]

Lovely shots Isabel I agree with Donald about leaving the tree in #1 instead of removing it . #2 looks great after cloning the top right corner. If it was mine I would also clone the bird on the left but it is nice with two birds too.

[IzzieK]

Dear Mike and Andre...

I try to avoid using ISO 800 too much on very dark situations. And I want more leeway when I do my settings at night so I can get better aperture. That seems to be what I was thinking of at that time when I set my ISo. Next time, if I will have another opportunity I will try to lower my ISO and see how I go. The shutter speed is more of what I was worried about at the time because it was so windy from early afternoon to late morning during our visit. My problem I thought at the time was catching those beautiful clouds or those birds which did not make any appearance earlier. Inside my camera, I discovered that I had set my setting to focus and release instead of just release to get some sharp image too and forgot to set it back to release. I was experimenting at the time with an article and a book about the Nikon Focusing System. I forgot to change my settings.

As for the noise, it is easy to remove them via ACR.

Izzie,

Thanks for the tip on how to deal with flare. Much appreciated.
I am still puzzled about your choice of ISO because the EXIF that you posted shows an exposure of 1/8000 sec at f16. With those settings you had plenty of room to drop the ISO from 1600 to 200 or even 100. You obviously have a much better camera than I do because with mine, ISO 800 is so noisy as to be almost unusable. This is why I keep mine set to 100 and only raise it if absolutely necessary.

Andre

[IzzieK]

Lovely shots Isabel I agree with Donald about leaving the tree in #1 instead of removing it . #2 looks great after cloning the top right corner. If it was mine I would also clone the bird on the left but it is nice with two birds too.

Thanks Binnur for passing by and commenting. I was working on the cloned out tree area almost an hour trying to even out those marks I created and after many tries I was able to do so and was happy. So I thought I'd send it off to the two people who shares that walkway to the dock. The next door neighbour declared interest in the one without the tree while the owner of the house whose verandah I shot this scene is more interested in the one with the tree, go figure. I just thought it was because the tree is in his property. Both got both shots and I think I won't be paid as much as my airplane shot at the airport, it will still be a sell I can be proud of.

Thanks to all who critiqued these two shots, especially Donald who first mentioned some improvements I can do with them. This is the first time I also went to edit a shot while online here at CiC whereas before I will usually wait until the next day to offer any corrections.

You are all my lucky stars for these last three images that I had uploaded for critiques and sold all three of them. With all my heart, thank you.