 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/02/2016 08:16 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 17-2-2016 22:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Still, if you point your camera at the sky, or at the water at the right
>> angle, it still looks moody as hell...
>
> These are the most difficult set-ups in photography though, and it is
> visibly winter, so no real surprise for the mood. It is a real challenge
> to balance between the brightness of sky and water and the deep shadows
> around.
You can re-balance it in post. But it turns out you can either have all
the scenery brightly lit (as it actually appears in the real world), or
you can have bright sparkles on the water (as it actually appears in the
real world). But you cannot have both. Make it brighter and the sparkles
go away. It's not a problem with the camera, it's just the limited
dynamic range of a computer screen, I guess...
I'm quite happy with how these came out though, even if it does make the
day look *way* darker than it actually was. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/02/2016 08:12 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 17-2-2016 22:41, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> A thousand people a day probably walk over this wooden bridge, oblivious
>> to the alien microcosm literally beneath their feet.
>
> That's a typically human trait. ;-)
>
> btw, I love your photographs.
Thanks!
"I photograph moss" makes me sound like the most boring human alive. But
I just can't get over how intricate its structure is. Plus it seems to
be the most interesting thing around to actually photograph.
Now, laying on the floor in my trench coat, pointing a camera at the
floor, while surrounded by scenic vistas of the lake all around... yeah,
I get some strange looks. :-S Still, several people seem to *like* these
pictures, so...
Next up: either a macro lens, or just a more powerful zoom. Or maybe a
fast prime. AAARGH!! >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-2-2016 20:10, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> "I photograph moss" makes me sound like the most boring human alive. But
> I just can't get over how intricate its structure is. Plus it seems to
> be the most interesting thing around to actually photograph.
>
> Now, laying on the floor in my trench coat, pointing a camera at the
> floor, while surrounded by scenic vistas of the lake all around... yeah,
> I get some strange looks. :-S Still, several people seem to *like* these
> pictures, so...
>
> Next up: either a macro lens, or just a more powerful zoom. Or maybe a
> fast prime. AAARGH!! >_<
You're hooked. No doubt about it.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-2-2016 20:08, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 18/02/2016 08:16 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 17-2-2016 22:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Still, if you point your camera at the sky, or at the water at the right
>>> angle, it still looks moody as hell...
>>
>> These are the most difficult set-ups in photography though, and it is
>> visibly winter, so no real surprise for the mood. It is a real challenge
>> to balance between the brightness of sky and water and the deep shadows
>> around.
>
> You can re-balance it in post. But it turns out you can either have all
> the scenery brightly lit (as it actually appears in the real world), or
> you can have bright sparkles on the water (as it actually appears in the
> real world). But you cannot have both. Make it brighter and the sparkles
> go away. It's not a problem with the camera, it's just the limited
> dynamic range of a computer screen, I guess...
Ahhh... I remember the days when I had to use an analog light meter...
and only know long afterwards what the results would be... ;-)
>
> I'm quite happy with how these came out though, even if it does make the
> day look *way* darker than it actually was. :-)
Absolutely.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2016 8:13 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> You can re-balance it in post. But it turns out you can either have all
>> the scenery brightly lit (as it actually appears in the real world), or
>> you can have bright sparkles on the water (as it actually appears in the
>> real world). But you cannot have both. Make it brighter and the sparkles
>> go away. It's not a problem with the camera, it's just the limited
>> dynamic range of a computer screen, I guess...
>
> Ahhh... I remember the days when I had to use an analog light meter...
> and only know long afterwards what the results would be... ;-)
Was that an extinction meter? :-P
I had one of those when I started photography. Light meters were for
professionals.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2016 8:49 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
> I had one of those when I started photography
It was like the Logaphot extinction meter shown here.
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Light_meter
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-2-2016 9:51, Stephen wrote:
> On 2/19/2016 8:49 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> I had one of those when I started photography
>
>
> It was like the Logaphot extinction meter shown here.
>
> http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Light_meter
>
>
Oh no! I am not as ancient as that! It looked more like this:
http://lavidaleica.com/content/introduction-light-meters
I still must have it somewhere, covered in dust...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2016 9:16 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 19-2-2016 9:51, Stephen wrote:
>> On 2/19/2016 8:49 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>> I had one of those when I started photography
>>
>>
>> It was like the Logaphot extinction meter shown here.
>>
>> http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Light_meter
>>
>>
> Oh no! I am not as ancient as that! It looked more like this:
>
> http://lavidaleica.com/content/introduction-light-meters
>
> I still must have it somewhere, covered in dust...
>
Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-2-2016 11:55, Stephen wrote:
> Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
> a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
> incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
>
The famous Soviet camera! Yes, I know them from reputation; never owned
one of those. My first "real" cameras were first a Voigtländer Vitoret
(was ruined by salt water) and then a Miranda.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...and I still have this one from my father:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JKRUK_20090116_FOTOAPARAT_VOIGTLANDER_IMG_7557.jpg
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
