Random Photos : Part 3
Discussion
Got a D800 today, here's a test shot out the window:
full res for those interested:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8194/8078244756_294e...
full res for those interested:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8194/8078244756_294e...
GFWilliams said:
Got a D800 today, here's a test shot out the window:
full res for those interested:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8194/8078244756_294e...
Interesting.full res for those interested:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8194/8078244756_294e...
What was the lens?
It's probably nothing but ... pixel peeping the full res image I saw a white spot that looked out of keeping with its surroundings. Given the resolution available and the impressive DR I reckon the sensors need to be perfect so a check for possible flaws would be sensible. Odd challenged pixels on the periphery of a frame are not usually a problem but this spot, though small, was almost right in the centre. Might be a genuine white object of course but ... if not it's best to know now and make a decision about what to do.
Other than that ... a great new challenge to enjoy!
LongQ said:
Interesting.
What was the lens?
It's probably nothing but ... pixel peeping the full res image I saw a white spot that looked out of keeping with its surroundings. Given the resolution available and the impressive DR I reckon the sensors need to be perfect so a check for possible flaws would be sensible. Odd challenged pixels on the periphery of a frame are not usually a problem but this spot, though small, was almost right in the centre. Might be a genuine white object of course but ... if not it's best to know now and make a decision about what to do.
Other than that ... a great new challenge to enjoy!
Nikon 24-70What was the lens?
It's probably nothing but ... pixel peeping the full res image I saw a white spot that looked out of keeping with its surroundings. Given the resolution available and the impressive DR I reckon the sensors need to be perfect so a check for possible flaws would be sensible. Odd challenged pixels on the periphery of a frame are not usually a problem but this spot, though small, was almost right in the centre. Might be a genuine white object of course but ... if not it's best to know now and make a decision about what to do.
Other than that ... a great new challenge to enjoy!
I can't see this white spot, can you point out where it is?
RobDickinson said:
Only you could justify not being convinced! I think it's excellent. You just don't get that light around here GFWilliams said:
Nikon 24-70
I can't see this white spot, can you point out where it is?
Thanks for the lens info. I can't see this white spot, can you point out where it is?
The "spot", whatever it is, is at x: 4383 y: 2713 or thereabouts.
Or, to put it another way, in the large conifer and to the left of the trunk just over half way up is a largish grey bird - probably a pigeon. Find that and drop down the image to the lower edge of the thick set of branches below it. Look left along the lower edge about half as far as the edge is below the bird. There is a fairly large light spot that seems to be out of context with its surroundings - i.e. it has approximately the same RGB values as the sky area and some of the white flowers along the path and stuff visible through obvious gaps in the foliage to brighter items in the background BUT doesn't seem to be the same sort of "show through" detail. So it looks out of place and worthy of a check.
On the other hand it occurred to me just now that the pigeon appears to be preening and it's just possible it's a feather or something falling to the ground. In which case that is absurdly good resolution. (Or, of course, rubbish jpg if one can see the details of the feather in an original RAW file .... )
If it IS a feather and the resolution IS what is seems to be then it's just possible the feather structure detail may be visible in RAW before any processing is applied .... That would be remarkable.
RobbieKB said:
RobDickinson said:
Only you could justify not being convinced! I think it's excellent. You just don't get that light around here RobDickinson said:
RobbieKB said:
RobDickinson said:
Only you could justify not being convinced! I think it's excellent. You just don't get that light around here How'd you like the 7D? I've been toying with getting one for quite a while now.
RobDickinson said:
RobbieKB said:
RobDickinson said:
Only you could justify not being convinced! I think it's excellent. You just don't get that light around here I can see why you have sat on it rather than binned it. Great light and information that somehow doesn't quite work at your standards. (Would be fine for me though!)
I think the structure doesn't quite come off (hence the suggested crop) and the extremes of the DR are maybe too extreme without a little more middle ground. Any chance of a little selective colour based lightening in the darker areas? Something to make it more cohesive without taking away too much of the drama.
Just some thoughts as a starting point for seeing it differently - which you probably need to do if you are not convinced by it already.
RobDickinson said:
If this was mine I wouldve cropped the majority of the sky out with a 17:6 crop. and flipped the image horizontally I feel this emphasises the pattern in the hills caused by the low lying sun that was fighting for attention over that huge cloud in the uncropped image.I like the Dark shadows in this, There is a lack of dark shadows in a lot of landscape work nowadays, adds a bit of mystery to an image for me.
Something like this (very rough as I only have Gimp at work )
that's just my view though
Edited by ...Mole... on Friday 12th October 11:34
...Mole... said:
RobDickinson said:
If this was mine I wouldve cropped the majority of the sky out with a 17:6 crop. and flipped the image horizontally I feel this emphasises the pattern in the hills caused by the low lying sun that was fighting for attention over that huge cloud in the uncropped image.I like the Dark shadows in this, There is a lack of dark shadows in a lot of landscape work nowadays, adds a bit of mystery to an image for me.
Something like this (very rough as I only have Gimp at work )
that's just my view though
Edited by ...Mole... on Friday 12th October 11:34
Why is flipping it important to the composition? I ask because as a piece of landscape "art" there is no reason not to flip it but as a photographic record of a place that (local) people can visit flipping may create some adverse responses. So I'm intrigued to understand how it makes a difference.
LongQ said:
...Mole... said:
RobDickinson said:
If this was mine I wouldve cropped the majority of the sky out with a 17:6 crop. and flipped the image horizontally I feel this emphasises the pattern in the hills caused by the low lying sun that was fighting for attention over that huge cloud in the uncropped image.I like the Dark shadows in this, There is a lack of dark shadows in a lot of landscape work nowadays, adds a bit of mystery to an image for me.
Something like this (very rough as I only have Gimp at work )
that's just my view though
Edited by ...Mole... on Friday 12th October 11:34
Why is flipping it important to the composition? I ask because as a piece of landscape "art" there is no reason not to flip it but as a photographic record of a place that (local) people can visit flipping may create some adverse responses. So I'm intrigued to understand how it makes a difference.
The second half of that might not be strictly true
LongQ said:
An interesting result.
Why is flipping it important to the composition? I ask because as a piece of landscape "art" there is no reason not to flip it but as a photographic record of a place that (local) people can visit flipping may create some adverse responses. So I'm intrigued to understand how it makes a difference.
I wouldnt say it's important just personal preference to me. I like it flipped as my eye follows the image down the shadowy hill in to the focal point of the sun bathed hills in the background quite nicely.Why is flipping it important to the composition? I ask because as a piece of landscape "art" there is no reason not to flip it but as a photographic record of a place that (local) people can visit flipping may create some adverse responses. So I'm intrigued to understand how it makes a difference.
I tend to flip images if I feel it's needed for the composition as I don't see my photos as being records of places. However I would be pretty apprehensive of flipping an image of an area that is particularly well known.
...Mole... said:
LongQ said:
An interesting result.
Why is flipping it important to the composition? I ask because as a piece of landscape "art" there is no reason not to flip it but as a photographic record of a place that (local) people can visit flipping may create some adverse responses. So I'm intrigued to understand how it makes a difference.
I wouldnt say it's important just personal preference to me. I like it flipped as my eye follows the image down the shadowy hill in to the focal point of the sun bathed hills in the background quite nicely.Why is flipping it important to the composition? I ask because as a piece of landscape "art" there is no reason not to flip it but as a photographic record of a place that (local) people can visit flipping may create some adverse responses. So I'm intrigued to understand how it makes a difference.
I tend to flip images if I feel it's needed for the composition as I don't see my photos as being records of places. However I would be pretty apprehensive of flipping an image of an area that is particularly well known.
If it's the reading left to right thing - as Robbie proposes - presumably there are a lot of people around who would find the image more appealing the way it is? And many who probably wouldn;t particualrly notice which way it was oriented.
All of which makes this a rather challenging pastime well beyond the technical aspects of taking a snap.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff