2017 Project 52 - 4th QTR - Sandy(Skitterbug)

[skitterbug]

Your in-camera light meter is superior to a hand-held meter in most circumstances, but it important to understand how it works and under which conditions it can be fooled. It works most of the time in "average" conditions, but a scene that is very bright; for instance shooting a bird in the sky or a snow-scape will result in an underexposure. A night scene will often result in an overexposure. A hand-held meter is useful in studio photography with flash, but offers no advantages, in fact a major disadvantage, in the type of shot you are taking.

I need to go back to a much older thread that covered snow scenes and the affect of light on the landscape. There was a lot of good discussion about this then. I actually may understand it better now that I've been working harder this year. <smile> I'm glad to know that the in-camera meter is okay. I wasn't crazy about the idea of trying to use one more item while I'm trying to get all this sorted out in my brain.

Learn to read the histogram display on your camera, and that can help augment the meter reading.

Looking through the view finder as I do, doesn't give me a histogram? Do different model cameras have this added feature? I see the histogram when I download my pics to my photo application. I must be missing something about the operation/features.

There was an issue with images from TinyPic loading for an hour or so. It seems to be working again.

I see the photo in question now. Interesting that in LR, develop mode that did not show red? However looking at the histogram, there are definitely spikes on the right-side of it. Thanks for pointing this out. Hopefully, I can remember to be more mindful next chance I get!

I appreciate your comments lots!

[skitterbug]

I'm sitting here laughing! Funny how one bit of information leads to another! I tend to get "side tracked" (get it?) when I start checking out links people put into their posts!

I debated about removing a bit at the top and then I didn't but I do agree, maybe down to just above the gazebo would work. I like that idea! I'll see what it looks like!

Thanks!

Oh Sandy,

Why did you have to put that link in to the article on the bridge - it suckered me in - then I had to see whether it was still in use by looking on Google maps/satellite, as it looks rather 'unmaintained'. Then I had to try and trace the old route of the railroad through the centre (sorry, center) of town before the bridge was built (success!). But really; I'm glad you did link it.

On week 41, I think the fountain picture would be a slightly stronger composition with a bit cropped off the top, to remove the distraction of the building and balustrade/balcony 'up there'. Also wondered about a small crop off right hand side as there's not much going on over there.

Cheers,
Dave

[Manfred M]

Looking through the view finder as I do, doesn't give me a histogram?

You can get to the histogram on the screen on the back of your camera in review mode, after you have taken the picture. I don't know Canon cameras well enough to tell you how to do that; I suspect that the wheel control on the camera back is how it is selected, but check your manual. It will be there.

[skitterbug]

Excellent images.....

Thank you Nandakumar! I appreciate your perspective!
I hope all is well for you!

[skitterbug]

You can get to the histogram on the screen on the back of your camera in review mode, after you have taken the picture. I don't know Canon cameras well enough to tell you how to do that; I suspect that the wheel control on the camera back is how it is selected, but check your manual. It will be there.

A manual???? What is that???? Teasing. I do have one.
I do note though from your post, that I can only see the histogram "after" I take the pic..... but at least once I take a shot, I can see how it should be and make corrections. For something stationary like a bridge, it would be handy to become comfortable using this feature. Now where is that manual.........

Thanks Manfred! Have a great day!

[skitterbug]

I like the second one better. It shows the dilapidation better.

Hi Paul!
I'm sorry I missed your comment! Scary but traffic still uses the road that runs beneath this bridge. I know when we go under it, we are hoping that a chunk of cement isn't going to fall on us!

I appreciate your opinion!

[skitterbug]

So to finish with attempts to a couple of suggestions, I have these two pics for results.

Geoff suggested cropping a bit to highlight the main column of the bridge and Arno suggested converting it into BW so I combined both and came up with this one. I don't generally work in BW because I don't really understand how to bring out the various shades but with the help of LR and Affinity maybe this will work?

1928 Railroad Bridge BW


For Dave's suggestion of cropping out the area above the gazebo and perhaps a bit off the side, I gave it a go and the results is the following pic:

Pond with water feature - edited

[Geoff F]

Those edits look good to me, Sandy.

And with the pansy, I would crop a little from the left side. In the top left corner there is a whole out of focus flower, but if you reduce it to just half a flower (or roughly around that size) it becomes just a distant part of the background instead of a distracting element which is competing with the main subject.

There aren't any firm rules about how to deal with background bits. Sometimes having a soft focus copy of the main subject helps with the composition while on other occasions it causes a distraction. I tend to try several alternative versions then decide which one I prefer.

[skitterbug]

Those edits look good to me, Sandy.

And with the pansy, I would crop a little from the left side. In the top left corner there is a whole out of focus flower, but if you reduce it to just half a flower (or roughly around that size) it becomes just a distant part of the background instead of a distracting element which is competing with the main subject.

There aren't any firm rules about how to deal with background bits. Sometimes having a soft focus copy of the main subject helps with the composition while on other occasions it causes a distraction. I tend to try several alternative versions then decide which one I prefer.

Hi Geoff ~ I gave your suggestion a try but I'm not sure I like it better. The original one shows a pansy in the background in development and that adds interest to me. This one is a pansy only! Maybe I cropped it too tightly. Anyway, you be the judge. What do you think? <grin>

And thank you for your views on these pics of mine! I appreciate it!

Cropped Pansy Pic

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Sandy,

The fountain edit is spot on regarding the RHS, but you probably went a bit further than I had in mind across the top edge.

Cropped Pansy is better too.

HTH,
Dave

[Geoff F]

The pansy edit is cropped fractionally tighter than I had in mind but this certainly concentrates on the fine petal detail.

[skitterbug]

Hi Sandy,

The fountain edit is spot on regarding the RHS, but you probably went a bit further than I had in mind across the top edge.

Cropped Pansy is better too.

HTH,
Dave

Hi Dave ~ I think I know what you might have had in mind now. My crop cut the top of the tree, etc. and it isn't quite as pleasing as perhaps this one may be? In fact, maybe I should have let even a touch more head space? One of these days, I'll "see" my pics on the first go! 20 weeks and counting........ <chuckle>
Thanks for the feedback!

[skitterbug]

The pansy edit is cropped fractionally tighter than I had in mind but this certainly concentrates on the fine petal detail.

Hi Geoff ~ I didn't think I ought to leave too much of the unopened flower in the background. And I didn't want to edit out any more of the pic manually.

Thinking about it though ~ I could have maybe left it as a slightly larger crop but then I would have felt the need to clone the background flower out entirely. This way, I can see the little "hairs" inside of the flower petals along with the detail of the petals themselves. <grin> However~ more thinking....(can you hear my brain rattling along?), if I wanted to have a print of it, I'd probably start getting busy cloning it out!

Thanks for making me consider options!

[Wavelength]

Lovely additions

[Dave Humphries]

That second fountain crop (post #32) is exactly what I had in mind Sandy,


Dave

[skitterbug]

Lovely additions

Thank you Nandakumar!

[skitterbug]

That second fountain crop (post #32) is exactly what I had in mind Sandy,


Dave

Whew! Success! Thank you Dave, for the encouragement!

[skitterbug]

I'm posting two photos to cover week 42 and week 43

There hasn't been much to inspire any photography outings. The leaves are dismal and I think I've seen most of the interesting stuff in my area. (probably not, but it seems like it) So I decided to dig out my wide-angle lens before the weather turns miserably cold. My lens seems to develop moisture when I go out in winter temps even though I take precautions. I imagine it isn't sealed the best.

I took several photos with it but none pleased me except the clematis. We will lose this flower soon because of the shifting of our temperatures. Winter is on its way. (huge sigh)

#1 - Clematis
16mm - 100 ISO - f/6.3 - 1/320ss


This evening hubby wanted to dispose of an old beehive we had. It had become infested with wax worms that are deadly to honeybees. We'd lost the hive earlier this year because of area farm spraying (sadly). Not much can be done about it unfortunately. So this is the reason why the hive was open to the infestation of the wax worm moth. A healthy colony of honeybees will defend their home fiercely.
Back to the fire - I liked the colors and I hope I captured the essence of it. I've been thinking that maybe I should have cropped more from the top and right side.

Opinions are welcome! I appreciate all of them!

#2 - Fire
154mm - 100 ISO - f/5.6 - 1/30ss

[Geoff F]

The Clematis scene, Sandy, is rather complex but you have managed to get the background area out of focus and avoided any bright light in that area, so the overall image does work well.

The fire is a difficult subject and your exposure is good with nice colour. A pity about a rather large out of focus portion of the foreground though; and no easy alternatives. Having a soft focus background would be quite acceptable but so much out of focus foreground does tend to spoil the effect.

Possibly, increasing the Iso to something around 400 and setting a narrower aperture may have helped; but I suspect your intended subject simply required more focus depth than could be achieved in one shot.

[Wavelength]

Very nice and crispy shots