2018 Project 52 by Geoff F - 1st Quarter

[Shadowman]

It was a very overcast grey day, John, so the foreground required a bit of over exposure to brighten it up a little, which would have over exposed the sky. Maybe I could have shot for the sky then forced the shot into two edits of the Raw image, with the brighter one to suit the foreground, then merged them. But, where possible, 2 or 3 bracketed exposures is the best way of working. If there had been any issues with subject movement I would have had to shoot one image then force it two ways at the Raw edit stage.

Geoff,

Thanks for the response.

[Geoff F]

Week 03 - Rainy Day Birds. With the sky promising to brighten up, I started for a local birdhide but before arriving there I realised it was a false promise and rain had returned. However I did what I could with photographing a few birds from the hide. This is the best of the day and they definitely aren't anywhere close to being prizewinners!

Greenshanks



7D with Sigma 150-600 lens at 600. 1/160 F 11 Iso 800



1/640 F8 Iso 800

Common Sandpiper. Too small and too far away in too poor a light.



1/200 F11 Iso 800

By the time a bit of brightness finally arrived, a couple of hours later, the birds had moved away; so I did the same.

[Cantab]

An interesting set of shore birds. I was surprised that the first one turned out as sharp as it did with the lens at 600mm and a shutter of 1/160 but presumably you were using a tripod/monopod, or perhaps lots of practice holding the lens rock solid! This first photo has proof of the rain as it plopped into the water.

[skitterbug]

All three look decent! I like the second one best because it seems the sharpest to me. This Sandpiper is strutten' his stuff just for you! In spite of the rain, and with plenty of patience, you had a successful outing!

[CormacD]

"......Week 03 - Rainy Day Birds. With the sky promising to brighten up, I started for a local birdhide but before arriving there I realised it was a false promise and rain had returned. However I did what I could with photographing a few birds from the hide. This is the best of the day and they definitely aren't anywhere close to being prizewinners!......"

I like number 2 the most as it has excellent focus on the main subject including the eye. I think that is because you had a wider aperture and therefore the focus was sharper on the bird and not the background as well, as in number 3. I'm a rank beginner in wild life photography and it is very interesting to try and analyse your bird shots.

[billtils]

Geoff, you certainly made lemonade out of lemons here!

I'm new to "Project 'xx'" but this seems to capture the spirit of the concept. Things went pear-shaped as far as the weather was concerned but instead of saying "too bad" (or words to that effect) and going home, you did the best that you could, and got a very acceptable set of 3.

In the circumstances there's not much point in a conventional C&C response but as a personal comment I like the first best because although the bird is sharper in the second one, it gets lost a wee bit against the brownish water, whereas it stand out nicely in the first.

[Geoff F]

Thanks for the comments; but time for a bit of honesty. The Greenshank in #2 has a 'false head'. The original shot was slightly blurred in the head region while the next shot (not shown) had a sharp head but motion blurred feet. So I did a select, copy and paste from one image to the other.

That species is frequently problematic because they nod their heads rather rapidly as they walk along, so ideally a faster shutter speed is required.

[Cantab]

Thanks for the comments; but time for a bit of honesty. The Greenshank in #2 has a 'false head'. The original shot was slightly blurred in the head region while the next shot (not shown) had a sharp head but motion blurred feet. So I did a select, copy and paste from one image to the other.

That species is frequently problematic because they nod their heads rather rapidly as they walk along, so ideally a faster shutter speed is required.

Congratulations on your surgical skills! I did something similar once with two photos of a person and their cat. One photo was good for the person and the other was good for the cat. So I moved the person's head over to the photo where the cat looked good.

[Geoff F]

Week 04 - Lannacombe Beach and surrounding area. Made the most of half a day where there were spells of sunshine and clear air before the next bout of rain and went for a quick stroll along the clifftop path near Start Point.

Tried this scene in black and white. I think there is just about enough white surf in the foreground and distant clouds to work in this way.



7D with Tamron 24-70 lens. 1/400 F11 Iso 400

Mattiscombe Beach.



1/640 F11 Iso 400

Prawle Point from Mattiscombe Beach



1/640 F11 Iso 400

Sheep near Lannacombe Beach.



1/640 F11 Iso 400

[Tronhard]

The gull, for me, was the main element as it sat on the memorial stone waiting to greet those passengers and hoping for a bit of food.

Hi Geoff:

I understand your frustrations with you gear and likely with the venue. As you say the gull was the main element I would suggest placing the gull against a background that was contrasting to it. For me the gull just melts into the similar tones of the handrails and I thought that, in fact, you were more interested in the passengers.

As has been alluded to here, the big thing you normally want to get is a clear purpose in an image and you can do that by placing it in a position of clear separation - you could do that if you have control of the aperture enough to keep it in focus while de-focusing the background. Similarly bringing it much closer (unlikely the gull would have let you get that close) with a telephoto lens, which would also reduce the DoF. In the event that you can't then I would go for moving to place the gull against a dark background moving left or right (if possible) to do so.

To be honest, I think that the gull itself was a very ambitious target, it was just lost in the figures of the people and the other distractions.

[Tronhard]

Having seen you shot of the boat in B&W and the rainbow ones, I think you nailed those!

I also like your bird close-ups and coastal shots!!!

[Cantab]

Geoff, I like all this week's shots but I think the B&W is truly excellent. It grabbed me with my first glimpse as it came up on the screen.

The composition works well, in focus waves/froth in the foreground then more waves stretching out to sea. There appear to be true blacks and whites so you achieved a good tonal range.

P.S. I also like that you used a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the waves (and the sheep!).

[Geoff F]

The B&W image is actually a merge of several edits. Three versions converted from the original Raw shot to expand the tonal range, and to lighten the shadows slightly to show more detail. Then two versions of the mono conversion, one for the land/sea and another for the sky. Finally those two edits were merged into one scene.

The only problem with the B&W is that surfer on the shoreline is hard to spot; although possibly that may be an improvement.

I did try another crop with less foreground surf but finally decided this version worked best.

[skitterbug]

Hi Geoff - Week 4 photos are once again excellent work! I do especially enjoy seeing the B/W of the shore line. I didn't notice the surfer until you mentioned him. I was looking at the ocean and the house high on the ridge! You put a lot of work into it and it was well worth the effort!

For the color ones, the first one - Prawle Point from Mattiscombe Beach - is my favorite! Can't really say why that is but it appeals to me.

[Shadowman]

Nice series.

[Cantab]

Geoff, the Firefox EXIF viewer I used to use has disappeared (from the right button on my mouse) but another viewer provided GPS data and online map links for your black and white photo. Both the latitude/longtitude data and the maps took me to an area of France many many miles from any coastline. Very mysterious. In the past, the EXIF GPS data on your photos has appeared to be very accurate.

I probably need to hunt for the EXIF viewer I used to have. Firefox sometimes removes add-on's which it thinks create vulnerabilities and therefore should not be allowed to run.

Later: I've found a replacement EXIF viewer that works on the current version (57) of Firefox and locates your photo where it should be, not on dry land in France.

[rudi]

[B]Week 04 -

Tried this scene in black and white. I think there is just about enough white surf in the foreground and distant clouds to work in this way.

I kinde like the B&W Geoff.
At first I thought removing the person would be a good idea, but on the other hand he gives a better idea about the size off the scene.
What about a bit off dodging and burning to 'break' the homogeneous grey, especially in the hill ??I am no landscape photographer, so just a thought .

[Geoff F]

I have been looking at that new Firefox Exif viewer extension, Bruce, and get the same results of an area near the France/Belgium border. I double checked the Exif GPS at each stage of producing an image here on CinC and the original GPS position has remained unchanged. So somehow that viewer is giving a different incorrect position and it is happening on all my images with embedded GPS data.

There is a link within that viewer to report any problems so I have sent an e mail about this.

With the previous viewer you had to locate it from the Tools menu while the new one is just a right click away which would certainly be easier to use, if it works fully as intended.

Regarding the headland, Rudi. That area is mostly a mix of yellowish brown dead foliage and poor yellowish green winter grass with rocky outcrops. But I did lighten the cliff to the left of the beach so I might get away with subtly creating more tonal variation in the distant headland 'valleys' while leaving the outcrops darker.

[Geoff F]

Bruce. I have had a reply from the creator of that Exif software. It appears that when he recently did some updates to the software he accidentally switched west and east around. A corrected version will be appearing soon.

[Cantab]

Bruce. I have had a reply from the creator of that Exif software. It appears that when he recently did some updates to the software he accidentally switched west and east around....

Geoff, it's a good thing that this software developer wasn't navigating a boat!

On a more serious note, I went hunting within Firefox for other add-ons and discovered that someone, other than the original developer, reworked the EXIF viewer I used to use, so that it now works with the current version of Firefox. The new one is named "view EXIF data". I find it more user-friendly than the default EXIF viewer.