| Author |
Message |
Alexey Vassiliev
Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 24
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:43 am
|  |
| semmickphoto wrote: | | Alexey Vassiliev wrote: | | semmickphoto wrote: | | Ok, I hadnt noticed until now, you are shooting with a P&S camera. So thats most likely the problem, the limitation of the sensor. |
I shoot JPEG and the camera needs upgrade because of this huge noise to submit anything for commercial use. But I remember that an expensive camera is not the one needed to get the best. So I asked about anything else wrong in my photo except the noise. Now, after reading about other newbies and collaborating about my own little work I understand better what to do and how to do. Thank You for comments :) |
I use a 450D plus 18-55mm kit lens, total cost 350 euro. Its an entry level DLSR plus kit lens, nothing fancy or expensive but it does the job well. Its possible to get stock photos with a P&S camera, but its pushing the limits and not easy.
If you are going to upgrade, its best to get a DSLR body, but invest in good glass. |
Thank You for advice :)
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39226
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:26 am
| |
Technique,Skill,Talent and experience are key factors also investing in your craft. Thats a party camera my friend, The sensor cannot resolve fine detail,Especially Landscape work.You can process it till the cows come home. It just won't work with todays standards being what they are.
|
|
S.m.u.d.g.e
Joined: 30 Jun 2012
Posts: 647
Location: Essex, England.
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:50 am
| |
I run an angle adjustment under the clouds base line to go horizontal, gives the mountain range more sense of climb to the right?
Then grad filter over the clouds to give them more clout, this was recommended to me here.
Still learning myself but hope it helps.
Pete.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
126.86 KB |
| Viewed: |
500 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
test-323.jpg |
| Filesize: |
186.78 KB |
| Downloaded: |
27 Time(s) |
Last edited by S.m.u.d.g.e on Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:58 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
S.m.u.d.g.e
Joined: 30 Jun 2012
Posts: 647
Location: Essex, England.
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:51 am
| |
Damn, why does it do that ( go to download?) what am I doing wrong?
|
|
cpaulfell
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 2434
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:54 am
| |
Your longest side is 667. Longest side must not be more than 500
|
|
S.m.u.d.g.e
Joined: 30 Jun 2012
Posts: 647
Location: Essex, England.
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:57 am
| |
| cpaulfell wrote: | | Your longest side is 667. Longest side must not be more than 500 |
I told LR4 to export @ 500px grrr, i'll try again and thanks.
... and corrected :) cheers
|
|
cpaulfell
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 2434
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:08 pm
| |
| Alexey Vassiliev wrote: | | or something else wrong in full version? |
You snow is "blue".
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
161.92 KB |
| Viewed: |
498 Time(s) |
|
|
|
S.m.u.d.g.e
Joined: 30 Jun 2012
Posts: 647
Location: Essex, England.
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:16 pm
| |
| cpaulfell wrote: | | Alexey Vassiliev wrote: | | or something else wrong in full version? |
You snow is "blue". |
Good example of 'white balance' cheers :) ~ the other thing I noticed (newb) is the severe hard edge at the foreground. Me thinks i'd have cropped it out or softened that 'part'.
|
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10620
Location: www.businesshelpforyou.org www.rudyumans.com
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:23 pm
| |
The not-blue version looks not natural. Made it look dirty and brown. Like some nasty pollution.
|
|
Alexey Vassiliev
Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 24
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:30 pm
| |
Thank You all for comments! :) it is interesting to collaborate, experiment and see what others think. Especially when there are different opinions for the same effect :)
|
|
Alexey Vassiliev
Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 24
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:40 pm
| |
| rudyumans wrote: | | The not-blue version looks not natural. Made it look dirty and brown. Like some nasty pollution. |
I agree with You that the snow color is not far from real on the original photo. But I also understand that in some cases it is better to change object to correspond "standard mining" than leave realistic unusual looking object. So it is the question more about mining of nature... Anyway few people were there and can say what is real :)
|
|
mikenorton
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 3482
Location: Guide Book http://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-norton/nortons-notes/paperback/product-5079819.html
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:56 pm
| |
You asked about framing & cropping and got all kinds of advise about artifacts, noise, the camera used and color balance, which is all good. But you asked for framing & cropping so that is what I'll give you.
If you noticed that Barry posted my 6-First Rule of Landscape Photography. They are rules in that I feel that beginners should know these things, once they are know then the bending of the rules can begin. You are way above the tree line so the one too many or one to few tree rule needs to be modified. The rule is really about foreground objects and that there are always too many objects around or too few. You had too few. You needed to find something up there that would have added some foreground interest. It could have been another climber taking in the spectacular view or an ice-ax sticking out of the ice or a rocky patch of ground where the climbers all stand, or to show determent to the environment an empty discarded air bottle (if you were that high), or skis that someone is going to use to do some extreme skiing. Look around you can usually find something or take something with you like a small flag [make your sherpa carry it;) ].
The tall peak in the middle is in a shadow, it would have been better if you would have waited till the sun was shining on that peak. It also looks like there was a higher peak just to the right of the picture. It's not good to cut off the higher peak like that, either crop the right side at the low spot between the two peaks or make sure the higher peak is in the picture too.
|
|
Alexey Vassiliev
Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 24
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:05 pm
| |
| mikenorton wrote: | You asked about framing & cropping and got all kinds of advise about artifacts, noise, the camera used and color balance, which is all good. But you asked for framing & cropping so that is what I'll give you.
If you noticed that Barry posted my 6-First Rule of Landscape Photography. They are rules in that I feel that beginners should know these things, once they are know then the bending of the rules can begin. You are way above the tree line so the one too many or one to few tree rule needs to be modified. The rule is really about foreground objects and that there are always too many objects around or too few. You had too few. You needed to find something up there that would have added some foreground interest. It could have been another climber taking in the spectacular view or an ice-ax sticking out of the ice or a rocky patch of ground where the climbers all stand, or to show determent to the environment an empty discarded air bottle (if you were that high), or skis that someone is going to use to do some extreme skiing. Look around you can usually find something or take something with you like a small flag [make your sherpa carry it;) ].
The tall peak in the middle is in a shadow, it would have been better if you would have waited till the sun was shining on that peak. It also looks like there was a higher peak just to the right of the picture. It's not good to cut off the higher peak like that, either crop the right side at the low spot between the two peaks or make sure the higher peak is in the picture too. |
Thank You very much for such detailed explanation. The photo was really taken in a specific direction and hardware zoom to avoid unwanted objects like people, electric wires and wired of elevators. I have a lot such shots and I don't show them because "waited" object can be not any random object.
Here I attach another image - also noisy in the sky area - but more interesting because of high-mountain snow road.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
175.36 KB |
| Viewed: |
446 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Alexey Vassiliev
Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 24
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:10 pm
| |
| mikenorton wrote: | You asked about framing & cropping and got all kinds of advise about artifacts, noise, the camera used and color balance, which is all good. But you asked for framing & cropping so that is what I'll give you.
If you noticed that Barry posted my 6-First Rule of Landscape Photography. They are rules in that I feel that beginners should know these things, once they are know then the bending of the rules can begin. You are way above the tree line so the one too many or one to few tree rule needs to be modified. The rule is really about foreground objects and that there are always too many objects around or too few. You had too few. You needed to find something up there that would have added some foreground interest. It could have been another climber taking in the spectacular view or an ice-ax sticking out of the ice or a rocky patch of ground where the climbers all stand, or to show determent to the environment an empty discarded air bottle (if you were that high), or skis that someone is going to use to do some extreme skiing. Look around you can usually find something or take something with you like a small flag [make your sherpa carry it;) ].
The tall peak in the middle is in a shadow, it would have been better if you would have waited till the sun was shining on that peak. It also looks like there was a higher peak just to the right of the picture. It's not good to cut off the higher peak like that, either crop the right side at the low spot between the two peaks or make sure the higher peak is in the picture too. |
And You were write that there is another higher peak to the right. It is the exact double-peak of Elbrus mountain, here it is on the attach. But it also has color noise and really no composition.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
149.85 KB |
| Viewed: |
433 Time(s) |
|
|
|
mikenorton
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 3482
Location: Guide Book http://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-norton/nortons-notes/paperback/product-5079819.html
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:09 pm
| |
Sometimes mountains are hard to shoot when you are in or on them. I lived at 9000 feet above sea-level in on the side of Buffalo Mountain in Colorado, there were 13000 foot peaks all around but they lacked impact because I was already at 9000 feet. It was so hard to shoot there that I moved back to Texas (well it was really the high cost of living near 4 ski resorts and the cold weather that sent me back to the Gulf Coast.)
Your pictures also suffer from being photographed at the wrong time of day. Early in the morning or late in the evening is better. The sun can turn the snow and clouds pink at this time. That is what you want to capture . . . colorful clouds and unusual colors on the land will make your landscapes stand out. White snow shots are a dime a dozen.
This is Buffalo Mountain from about 9000 feet - boring!
This is Moraine Lake in Banff, Canada. Notice the elevation change from the lake to the top of the peaks and the stripe of red light called alpenglow, these are what you need to be looking to shoot. The alpenglow in this case was in the morning and only lasted for a minute or two.
Now for something completely different:
Why are the images from my portfolio small now? Have I missed something?
|
|
| |
|
Log in
