Photo of the Day October 2011

[fcortese]

Saved by the cloud…

I spent a long while scouting up and down the coastline near Poreč, Croatia, looking for a fairly specific composition that I had in mind. I wanted to be in a little cove (there are loads of them along the Croatian coast) so that I would have fingers of land sticking out along the horizon, with an opening revealing the open sea. I wanted rocks in the foreground that would point toward that opening, and I wanted to catch the setting sun twinkling on its way down in that opening. So much for the last part: in all of my scouting and hopping from cove to cove, I got confused about which way was west. I ended up with a composition that, much to my surprise, was pointing very far to the north. Oops. I only realized my mistake when the sun started to set (in an explosion of glorious colors) way off to my left.

Amazingly, Mother Nature apparently took pity on me and parked one very cool cloud right over my opening, begging for it to be my subject in lieu of the sun. In retrospect, I think her idea was probably better than mine.

She, Mother Nature, is always right! f/11, 4sec - did you used a ND filter on this one?

 

[Ravaroo]

Saved by the cloud…

that is a beauty!

 

[Doylem]

Sometimes I have trouble getting my horizons straight, and my verticals vertical. But this old church really does lean this much!

 

[Designer Dale]

I know this is the Alps, but the B&W treatment reminds me of the American Southwest. Great photo, you have an excellent eye for this kind of treatment.

A quick shot while walking back from the barn in my previous post.

^^ Hello from #4010

And #5506


Dale

 

[Hisdem]

Dimensional by Hisdem, on Flickr

 

[Keleko]

I like the depth of field and the overall range. Can you provide EXIF and any PP details?
Was this hand-held? And how are them Georgia apples?

Greg

I'm going from memory because I'm not at my Mac to get it off Aperture. It was either f/11 or f/16, I think 1/100 shutter and definitely ISO 100. I don't remember what the focal length was, but probably around 24-25mm. I tried a 3 exposure bracket because the sky was much brighter than the apple trees, but it was windy. There was too much movement to easily combine the exposures. I picked the 0 exposure to process because the sky was not overexposed in that one. So I had to bring up the shadows in the tree area instead to balance out the exposure the way it should look. In retrospect I should have tried a higher ISO, like 400 or even 800, to get a better shutter speed. The camera was on my tripod.

As for the apples, I got Jonagold and Crispins for eating. They are really good.

 

[NeGRit0]

Does this photo work? What could be improved?

 

[fitshaced]

Does this photo work? What could be improved?

Image

Th first think your eye sees are the swans as they are the brightest part. I think they need to be in focus as opposed to the foreground.

 

[Doylem]

Whenever I ask myself does this picture work?, there’s only ever one answer. A pic that works works; I don’t have to think about it.

The swan pic I’d call “close, but no cigar”: an experiment that might have worked... but didn’t. The swans have no ‘relationship’ to each other. RH swan is swimming out of the picture plane. What’s in focus - some of the grasses - isn’t interesting enough to hold the pic together. The eye doesn’t know where to go, to make sense of the composition. It doesn’t give me the feeling that I’m there.

These are the kind of thoughts I'd have if I was editing a new set of pix on my Mac...

 

[AlexH]

The gate is closed by DigitAl3x, on Flickr

 

[LumbermanSVO]

So I'm not the only one who will point the camera to a train anytime I see one

A late night pit stop along the Columbia River on HWY-14:

 

[sunnyj]

picked up a 5d mkii to replace the 60d. also got a 50mm to add to the collection.

 

[Phrasikleia]

She, Mother Nature, is always right! f/11, 4sec - did you used a ND filter on this one?

Oh yes, I'm a filter junkie. I used a 3-stop soft ND grad on the sky, and a 3-stop ND (solid) in addition to it; the latter lengthened the exposure to where the rocks beneath the water in the foreground would be visible. The Adriatic is basically a big lake with no surf to speak of, so there's no point in trying to get interesting 'flow' in seascapes taken along its coast. The rocks beneath the surface are more interesting than any texture that the surface itself can provide.

 

[oblomow]

a stroll in the Slovenský raj

 

[Damiantmc]

Here's mine, Sunny Telford Uk ;-)

 

[sleepypanda]

 

[fcortese]

My contrib today:

****
Thanks, Phrasikleia, for the explanation. Out of curiosity, could you have gotten the same effect of seeing the below surface rocks with a CP filter?

 

[Keleko]

Here's another one from the apple orchard. When I took this shot, I knew it was going to be a b&w or sepia. There was very little color in the scene itself.

 

[Ravaroo]

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/r...kr.com/6102/6240224900_fb1619cfc8_b.jpg[/img]
Blaze by Ravaroo, on Flickr[/URL]

 

[Kiwibloke]

Aalesund by kiwi-bloke, on Flickr

Recent trip to Norway

 

[Phrasikleia]

Thanks, Phrasikleia, for the explanation. Out of curiosity, could you have gotten the same effect of seeing the below surface rocks with a CP filter?

No, the CPL will only minimize reflections, and only those coming from a certain angle. If the water isn't moving, then the CPL is best for managing the reflective qualities of its surface. But with moving water (even water that isn't moving much), you have textures made up of reflections, shadows (along ripples or splashes), foam, etc.; if you want to smooth out texture on the water, then you need a long exposure.

I sometimes use both a CPL and an ND, but it really depends on the circumstance and what I'm trying achieve. A CPL will affect light being reflected everywhere in the frame, which can mean minimizing some reflections that you do want (light coloring the water in the distance, for example).

Hope that all made sense.

 

[fcortese]

No, the CPL will only minimize reflections, and only those coming from a certain angle. If the water isn't moving, then the CPL is best for managing the reflective qualities of its surface. But with moving water (even water that isn't moving much), you have textures made up of reflections, shadows (along ripples or splashes), foam, etc.; if you want to smooth out texture on the water, then you need a long exposure.

I sometimes use both a CPL and an ND, but it really depends on the circumstance and what I'm trying achieve. A CPL will affect light being reflected everywhere in the frame, which can mean minimizing some reflections that you do want (light coloring the water in the distance, for example).

Hope that all made sense.

Yes, it did thanks for the "tutorial" and your continued willingness to share your expertise.

 

[mikeschmeee]

 

[macAllen]

Just got a 35mm f1.8


Zoltar, The Fortune Teller by AllenCisneros, on Flickr

This is defiantly the most realistic Zoltar I've seen so far...So I had to take his portrait

 

[sonor]

​