Loweswater Village Hall

[GetCarter]

Taken at 06:15 this morning from just over 1 mile away with Whiteless Pike in the background. (Nikkor 80-400 at full stretch)

It looks crap at 750 so here's a link
www.stevecarter.com/LoweswaterVillageHall.jpg

Steve

[poah]

06:15 far too early. main reason I've never bothered with landscapes or sunrises lol

nice mist

[le gravy noire]

I could have taken a photo of me feeding a chicken at that time this morning, although I think it may not stir the same emotional reaction in the viewer....

great shot matey!

matt

[poah]

you could have attached a mount to it

[marctwo]

Excellent. Again.

[longers]

le gravy noire said:

I could have taken a photo of me feeding a chicken at that time this morning, although I think it may not stir the same emotional reaction in the viewer....

Neither would the 2 week old baby's nappy I was changing then (the baby is 2 weeks old, not the nappy)

Nice shot Steve.

Longers

[GetCarter]

Does she sleep or cry Longers?

[V6GTO]

At 6:15 I was drinking lots of water trying to make my headache/hangover go away

Nice shot Steve. If that's what the UK looks like I'm staying here...brrrrrrrr.

Martin.

[longers]

GetCarter said:

Does she sleep or cry Longers?

Both, but not at the same time! Only cries when hungry or nappy needs changing - bit like her dad then!

[_dobbo_]

One thing I always notice about your photos Steve is that they are always incredibly sharp without being overly so.

If you don't mind sharing, what sharpening process do you use? And do you follow a different process on a full sized vs a web sized image?

[GetCarter]

_dobbo_ said:

One thing I always notice about your photos Steve is that they are always incredibly sharp without being overly so.

If you don't mind sharing, what sharpening process do you use? And do you follow a different process on a full sized vs a web sized image?

Yes!

First up.

D2X with a good lens is sharp. I have set a software variable in the camera to sharpen on shoot. I also shot the above at 250 iso(handheld), so the shutter was about 800th sec (DOF wasn't an issue) - it was BRIGHT and DARK.

On the above pic, I reduced to 920 px wide (or thereabouts) and as it looked REALLY soft on re-size (as always) I used the unsharp mask in PS CS2 - but selecting only the trees, leaving the mist and hill behind soft.

In the print size version, the trees will be sharp enough, so I will probably select all the trees, then 'invert selection' and soften the rest to keep the spooky mist thing going whilst keeping the trees sharp.

I guess it's the PS unsharp mask that is the key... I play about with each shot to make sure the bits we look at are sharp... the rest can stay as soft as butter.

In my previous post (warra lorra lens) I only sharpened the seagull's eye www.stevecarter.com/fete2006/16.jpg . I find sharpening the eyes is all you need to make the whole animal (person) sharp. (adding that this is 1% of file size so very noisy).

In short... I select bits of a pic to sharpen, not the whole thing.

If you understand that lot, you are more of a man than me.

[V6GTO]

GetCarter said:

In short... I select bits of a pic to sharpen, not the whole thing.

Will you stop giving trade secrets away!?

M.

[GetCarter]

[imperialism2024]

V6GTO said:

GetCarter said:

In short... I select bits of a pic to sharpen, not the whole thing.

Will you stop giving trade secrets away!?

M.

Hmm I'll have to try that...