Rachel Foster
New member
Asher, earlier in this thread you recommended a 60mm2.5 macro lens. Is this a decent general purpose lens?
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Rachel's River, a struggle to photograph there. An edited experimental blog!
- Thread starter Rachel Foster
- Start date
Rachel Foster
New member
Back to the river
Still miles to go, but I'm getting closer to capturing the image I'm striving to get.
Still miles to go, but I'm getting closer to capturing the image I'm striving to get.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The lens I love is the ED 50 2.5 Macro which is a sharp lens with great color and excellent for portraits as well as general photography. It is, I believe optically better than the 50 1.4. However, the focus motor is terribly slow compared to the 50 1/4 or the 50 1.8.
The 60mm Macro is for the small sensor cameras such as the Rebel and 10/20/40D and has great reports but I don't know how fast it focuses.
For just Macro work at least 100mm - 150mm is where you should be looking.
This image of the river concerns me Rachel, as I cannot fathom the compositional elements that might it compelling. I could be "missing" what's special and that is not some humor or sarcasm at all. I really am open to instruction and sharing of personal points of view. However, at this stage, I see some of your pictures miss on the following needs that come to my mind.
Image Needs:
1. An immediate impression that what we are seeing is something unique that has some independence from the rest of the myriad of possibilities in the universe.
2. The image seems to be complete.
3. Sufficient is there to provide context or exclude context so that a particular set of experiences can be reinvoked.
5. Lighting illuminates the subject field such that form, texture, color, dimension and mood is optimized into a unity that is compelling.
4. Position and perspective and timing: chosen to place the camera view to align, position, arrange and distribute components with reference to each other and the external world and illuminated such that,at the time of pressing the shutter release, everything will be fused together in that instant of photographic exposure and make a latent image that has the potential to be brought to life in the "darkroom", digital or classic.
5. The picture invites and draws one in to ponder and or marvel ask questions, or some other significant reaction showing that it has impacted the human world.
6. The image has an identity and in the best cases, one wants to stay longer, leaves with reluctance or revisit.
My suggestions. You must go back to exactly this place. I would like to experience a complete "something" in your picture of water going over the rocks.
For a start, maybe anchor the picture with the whole length of the grass. That provides something solid complete and known from which to explore everything else. Seeing the grass cut off at the base, might be something philosophically you have designed (again not sarcastic) and I will stand corrected. However, I do believe you are trying to project top us your experience by the river to which you have a particular bond.
I believe that opening up your breadth of sampling of what you see might help so that we get immediately comfortable before we are given surprises. Again, not a rule, but here, I think, would work better.
The oblique angle of the edge of the smooth water to the rocks is potentially a powerful feature, but why is it not extended? Is that all there was in length? The reflections in the water also have embedded richness but we only see the edges of this beauty.
When taking such a picture, explore first without a lens, just a rectangle cut in a sheet of cardboard or a hand held viewer moviemakers use. Just move around the object of your desire, like a hunter stalking prey, getting into the best position for the kill. Pressing the button does not make the picture. The preparation does.
1. Choice of subject
2. What is needed and then add 15% more
3. What must be excluded but without damaging the esthetic imperatives of #1
4. What events require timing (shadows, birds passing, clouds arriving, sun rising or setting, people leaving, man and child arriving wind settling down and so forth.
5. Composition- what shapes, lines, patterns, contrasts, symmetries, asymmetries, textures and colors might draw the eye to explore to points of interest and elicit reactions in the viewer that something before them is interesting, inviting or compelling.
Just moving to the right, angling the camera to the left and going back a few feet might have provided us with a breathtaking experience of this small sample of your river. Even then, attention in post processing to bring out the textures of the rocks and the mirror quality of the water would be needed.
This is hard work, I know. However, transmitting one's vision with the packed values and thrills is worth the struggle!
Asher
Rachel Foster
New member
That is very helpful, Asher! Cropping is a major area of weakness for me and I've not yet discovered exactly how to attack it.
I'll look at it carefully.
I'll look at it carefully.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel, you are not the only one that has troubles here.
Part of this is a balance that sense that works when matching gloves and shoes to a suit or an extension to an impressive building. When complete, it must have a unity that respects different components and then creates a sense of wholeness.
The greatest part of photography is the scouting and choice of the camera's point of observation. Then add to the framing you think is essential. Back home, study what you have and look to see if it is what you wanted. If not go back and do it over.
Then go to art galleries and museums and browse books so that one can know how others have solved this particular subject.
Can you recognize when an extension is built on to an iconic building and it is simply wonderful or else a disaster?
If so, you are on to a good start. Walk around and ask why a garden works or how badly a tree is trimmed? Look at everything from advertising to peoples furniture choices and great art.
Asher
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Bonjour Rachel.
take your time when you shoot, frame well and you won't need to crop later and therefore save good resolution for printing.
Hold your vision while you have your camera in hand, use your camera as an extension of your brain, and beleive me, you'll save a lot of time spent in front of your computer…
imho
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well, Nicolas,
Of course you are totally correct and this way does work especially for task-driven photography where you know very well what you are going to be paid for and your mind has pretty well planned the sort of matter you might choose to focus on.
Here however, Rachel is still learning what balances an image and how tension and harmony can coexist and much more. This you already know so framing just gathers together all that you know for sure is worthwhile.
For some work, serendipity gives us surprises. We discover things and relationships we did not realize were present. In this case, sitting in front of the computer screen, if one is really open to new experience and not responding to a client or workflow pressure, there might be additional beauty and passionate tension that were not apparent before.
It's this part of photography where I have difficulty in understanding since we don't know what it is that makes parts of images compelling when we did not recognize this before. Maybe it is that we are less bombarded by outside stimuli and able to hyper-concentrate on less. Undeniably, these are two entirely different approaches. They are not, however mutually exclusive.
Even in the framed image there will likely be small components which are, in themselves compelling. If isolated by cropping, these become offspring of the mother work and can have independent meaning and worth.
We just need to be open to this. However, at a risk! Without discipline, a working photographer might get distracted and clients are not that forgiving as they too have deadlines!
For art, however, reframing at the computer is perfectly fine and a creative choice.
Asher
Of course you are totally correct and this way does work especially for task-driven photography where you know very well what you are going to be paid for and your mind has pretty well planned the sort of matter you might choose to focus on.
Here however, Rachel is still learning what balances an image and how tension and harmony can coexist and much more. This you already know so framing just gathers together all that you know for sure is worthwhile.
For some work, serendipity gives us surprises. We discover things and relationships we did not realize were present. In this case, sitting in front of the computer screen, if one is really open to new experience and not responding to a client or workflow pressure, there might be additional beauty and passionate tension that were not apparent before.
It's this part of photography where I have difficulty in understanding since we don't know what it is that makes parts of images compelling when we did not recognize this before. Maybe it is that we are less bombarded by outside stimuli and able to hyper-concentrate on less. Undeniably, these are two entirely different approaches. They are not, however mutually exclusive.
Even in the framed image there will likely be small components which are, in themselves compelling. If isolated by cropping, these become offspring of the mother work and can have independent meaning and worth.
We just need to be open to this. However, at a risk! Without discipline, a working photographer might get distracted and clients are not that forgiving as they too have deadlines!
For art, however, reframing at the computer is perfectly fine and a creative choice.
Asher
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Mais non Asher!
the intent is from the beginning!
It's not a question of dogmatism, it's the question of what to achieve!
If you want to arrive to point B you need to have a point A to start from.
The intent is not 'coming' while looking at a computer screen, otherwise it is a salvage, not an intent.
The combo body/lens aperture/speed light/nolight will give certain results for a certain framing.
Shoot wider and crop you won't get the same result as a closer original framing.
Shooting wide to crop later is betting for luck.
If cropping were a good way to make photograph, everyone would shoot 10mm wide and crop.
I am pretty sure that it is a much faster learning curve to try to get the right image (the one you want) when you have your eye in the eyepiece, moving, turning around, getting up or down around the subject and suddenly you know you get it.
This has nothing to do with advertising or artistic picture (for my own sake I don't see any difference for my work).
Sometimes I admit I get lucky, in a picture I may find another one so you get 2 pics in the same file!
Sometimes also I do crop to fine tune or to level an horizon, but the aim is in the original framing.
So back to teaching someone, I would eventualy say you should have framed it wider/higher/shorter etc. I would not say you should have cropped it.
Subbtle? that's all photography is about…
the intent is from the beginning!
It's not a question of dogmatism, it's the question of what to achieve!
If you want to arrive to point B you need to have a point A to start from.
The intent is not 'coming' while looking at a computer screen, otherwise it is a salvage, not an intent.
The combo body/lens aperture/speed light/nolight will give certain results for a certain framing.
Shoot wider and crop you won't get the same result as a closer original framing.
Shooting wide to crop later is betting for luck.
If cropping were a good way to make photograph, everyone would shoot 10mm wide and crop.
I am pretty sure that it is a much faster learning curve to try to get the right image (the one you want) when you have your eye in the eyepiece, moving, turning around, getting up or down around the subject and suddenly you know you get it.
This has nothing to do with advertising or artistic picture (for my own sake I don't see any difference for my work).
Sometimes I admit I get lucky, in a picture I may find another one so you get 2 pics in the same file!
Sometimes also I do crop to fine tune or to level an horizon, but the aim is in the original framing.
So back to teaching someone, I would eventualy say you should have framed it wider/higher/shorter etc. I would not say you should have cropped it.
Subbtle? that's all photography is about…
Rachel Foster
New member
I'm mulling over these points. Will think on them a while.
Rachel Foster
New member
I can say that when it comes to fashion, I'm dynamite! (Said in all modesty.....
.)
.)
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
For most photography, one needs to have a clearly defined intent, position and frame accordingly, use your specific workflow and voila, you have completed your "arc of intent." For other less formal artistic work one is being open to experience and delaying the formation and hardening of one's particular intent. One arrives at a location and breathes in the air, looks around as feels this is the place for creativity!
However, from any tested shooting position, one might be thrilled but still unsettled with what one sees. Still you just love it and so take a series of pictures. Your only intent at that point is to bring this richness home like returning with flowers or shells and driftwood. Somehow you know that within all this there lies some essence that has resonated with you and needs to be explored. So one examines the photographs on the screen. Yes, there's a man on crutches in a doorway and that tree has blossoms that I was not able to see because of the light. That little girl had a teddy bear and one of it's eye's are missing and she is sewing on a red button!
This exploration can be rich, wonderful and rewarding or else disappointing.
Here the creative intent has not as yet been defined but may emerge as a result of closely experiencing the scene without other distraction in the universe. Yes, this may sound like artistic sacrilege, a cover up for lack of talent or some combination and sometimes that might be what is happening. However, I don't think so. Exploring by sampling is a valid way of photographing around us. Sometimes this delivers a picture that's worthwhile or else creates the germ of a new idea that we had perviously not recognized. So now we can go back and reshoot this with well-formulated idea. So the intent now is defined and the photography becomes formal again.
I have thought a lot about this and Nicolas, my good friend, we have to accommodate and respect this unique method of exploring and experimenting.
To do this one needs an open mind. So for the inexperienced, even taking a formal picture, with a clear intent and purpose, I see no reason not to add an extra margin. With a zoom lens that is a simple matter and the perspective does not change one iota! I see more problems with shots being too tight than other issues ruining a potentially impressive picture.
Asher
Rachel Foster
New member
Thanks, all. I'm off to do some more learning. I'll be back when I have made some observable improvement.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Rachel,
I hope you can return to that very spot and use a wider lens to get more of that composition. The reflections in the water are very interesting veritcals and the mass of rocks and the oblique strcuture on the lower right (a bridge) provide bold geometry.
However that fdoregrounf plant is important and to my way of thinking it can be substantial as an anchoring point ot the whole image if we get the grasses right to the ground in perfect detail.
Then we want to go wider to get more of the sweep of the river. The upper bank would be great too perhaps. We'd have to see what's there.
It would be great to extend to the left the powerful grouping of round rocks that cut from left to upper right in a zig zag formation.
Sketch for Rachel's River
Let me know id this might be helpful.
Remember Monet returned month after month to the same spot to paint once more the same subject. Ansel Adams did the same with photography and then spent months or sessions over years to extract, manupulate and derive his final images in brutally technical darkroom work.
Serendipity helps with photography but so does persistence and planning! Then the pleasure is immense for everyone!
Happy shooting!
Asher
P.S. once the composition is decided on, then, perhaps, one might take several bracketed exposures to capture the reflections of the clouds in the still water too.
I hope you can return to that very spot and use a wider lens to get more of that composition. The reflections in the water are very interesting veritcals and the mass of rocks and the oblique strcuture on the lower right (a bridge) provide bold geometry.
However that fdoregrounf plant is important and to my way of thinking it can be substantial as an anchoring point ot the whole image if we get the grasses right to the ground in perfect detail.
Then we want to go wider to get more of the sweep of the river. The upper bank would be great too perhaps. We'd have to see what's there.
It would be great to extend to the left the powerful grouping of round rocks that cut from left to upper right in a zig zag formation.
Sketch for Rachel's River
Let me know id this might be helpful.
Remember Monet returned month after month to the same spot to paint once more the same subject. Ansel Adams did the same with photography and then spent months or sessions over years to extract, manupulate and derive his final images in brutally technical darkroom work.
Serendipity helps with photography but so does persistence and planning! Then the pleasure is immense for everyone!
Happy shooting!
Asher
P.S. once the composition is decided on, then, perhaps, one might take several bracketed exposures to capture the reflections of the clouds in the still water too.
Rachel Foster
New member
I'll be asking my photog instructor about some of these things.
In the meantime, I've requested a spot in a week long portrait seminar in June! Keep your fingers crossed for me....
In the meantime, I've requested a spot in a week long portrait seminar in June! Keep your fingers crossed for me....
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Rachel,
Good luck on your trip to Europe! I hope you really enjoy Italy and you both come back with great memories and photographs. Keep us informed by occaisonal images.
Check the prices before you order, as a cup of coffee is the same as the price of an 8GB card unless you go to Montenegro or Transylvania!
Asher
Good luck on your trip to Europe! I hope you really enjoy Italy and you both come back with great memories and photographs. Keep us informed by occaisonal images.
Check the prices before you order, as a cup of coffee is the same as the price of an 8GB card unless you go to Montenegro or Transylvania!
Asher
Rachel Foster
New member
I noticed! It ain't cheap!
Rachel Foster
New member
I'm rather embarrassed....I just noticed than when I switched the photobucket account around I deleted half my images!
Apologies!
Apologies!
Rachel Foster
New member
I don't know if anyone remembers my duck.....shadowed, other problems, etc. Well, I never got THAT duck...but I now have....a DUCK!
It looks in focus on my laptop but I suppose there is the possibility it is not......whaddaya think?
It looks in focus on my laptop but I suppose there is the possibility it is not......whaddaya think?
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I don't know if anyone remembers my duck.....shadowed, other problems, etc. Well, I never got THAT duck...but I now have....a DUCK!
It looks in focus on my laptop but I suppose there is the possibility it is not......whaddaya think?
Hi Rachel,
Glad you are back to the water. Where is this? Is this your river once more. Glad you found another duck!
We need to get back to some basics. I for one would love to know who is your photography instructor. That way we all might get on the same page. The previous picture that I marked up had serious compositional issues that I thought you might address. You did say you were going to ask your instructor. I wonder whether perhaps my diagram was not clear to you so you just didn't know what on earth I was talking about.
Essentially, here's my view. One needs to address issues as they arise otherwise there is little point in going beyond "Wow!" and perhaps even "Was the water that grey?"
For that particular picture of the river with a diagonal line of rocks in the water, the composition was stunted by being to restricted or have nothing really of interest and strength to demand our attention.
1. The plant in the foreground was cut off. What's left has no particular attraction. Why is it there? I think you might have included it because it seemed to be needed. That may very well be true. If so, include enough of it so it becomes interesting. If the picture is large enough, then that one plant might anchor the picture.
2. The rocks are interesting but we see so few of them. If they are the subject, then maybe frame them in a compelling manner. I cannot see that yet. However, my guess is that they are not the subject but part of your total composition.
3. We don't see the other bank of the river. Was that too far, were there no features that could make the image more impressive?
4. The diagonal of the rocks might go further to the left. Is that the case. Could the picture be widened to take in more so they constitute a powerful element to make the picture work.
The picture as you have shown it is flat. Imagine a person with a flat affect. Not very entertaining. The picture must capture attention in order for us to have some interchange with it so we start to handle you own ideas through what you put into the photograph in your particular way.
O.K. Rachel, that now restates what I tried to express above. Now it would be kind for you to give back and let us know how these ideas jive with you and your instructor if he/she is still working with you. If it's Ben Lifson, I know he is unfortunately sick and so you may not be getting further help at this time from this wonderful man.
Kindest wishes.
Asher
P.S. if you provide the images I'll place them where you tell me by post number on the top right hand corner of each post.
Rachel Foster
New member
Hi Asher. I took an intro photography class at a local community college. I don't think you can really call him my instructor as I was merely a member of a large class. I've gotten helpful feedback from some people on Photo.net, but other than that and the help I've gotten here, I guess you would have to say my errors are from my own attempts to fumble through the wilderness.
I did connect just this week with someone who has offered to work with me one on one. I PMd the name to you to see if you'd heard of him. After I did, I sat down with him and am convinced he can help me a great deal. I was hoping to work with Alain Briot (if he'd have me!) but finances prohibit that for now, anyway. I would like to "graduate" to one of Alain's workshops (the Navajo one is particularly appealing to me).
The purpose of this post was not to present a "good" image. It was more of an "Yippee! I finally corrected some of the previous problems." I'm still on baby steps and perhaps should remember that even though this is entry digital photography, people want more than simple (but to me significant progress).
My journey has required an intense amount of work. That's likely because I've tried to progress so very far in such a short time. It's wonderfully rewarding to me, but I need to remember it's not very interesting to others.
This image is nothing in the way of composition. It is more getting the focus, clarity, and being able to see the darn duck's eyes. I don't know if you remember, but focus has been a major challenge.
I have some images that I find compositionally pleasing, but do not want to clutter the forum up with multiple threads. Knowing what I'm about to say sounds arrogant, and taking as a given that I have a lot to learn, I am willing to say that someday....with a lot more work...someday I'm going to be good. Very good.
I did connect just this week with someone who has offered to work with me one on one. I PMd the name to you to see if you'd heard of him. After I did, I sat down with him and am convinced he can help me a great deal. I was hoping to work with Alain Briot (if he'd have me!) but finances prohibit that for now, anyway. I would like to "graduate" to one of Alain's workshops (the Navajo one is particularly appealing to me).
The purpose of this post was not to present a "good" image. It was more of an "Yippee! I finally corrected some of the previous problems." I'm still on baby steps and perhaps should remember that even though this is entry digital photography, people want more than simple (but to me significant progress).
My journey has required an intense amount of work. That's likely because I've tried to progress so very far in such a short time. It's wonderfully rewarding to me, but I need to remember it's not very interesting to others.
This image is nothing in the way of composition. It is more getting the focus, clarity, and being able to see the darn duck's eyes. I don't know if you remember, but focus has been a major challenge.
I have some images that I find compositionally pleasing, but do not want to clutter the forum up with multiple threads. Knowing what I'm about to say sounds arrogant, and taking as a given that I have a lot to learn, I am willing to say that someday....with a lot more work...someday I'm going to be good. Very good.
Rachel Foster
New member
I'm concerned by your statement about Ben Lifson. It sounds quite serious. I'll remember him in my prayers and thoughts to the Creator.
Rachel Foster
New member
Speaking of composition, I'm still pondering these. I think there may be enough interest inherent in the images, but I'm not certain that the "ooh! wildlife!" factor isn't clouding my judgment. If these weren't wildlife...would we find it pleasing in terms of composition?
That's just one of the issues I'm trying to understand.
**Note....I'm still on my laptop so while I think they're in focus, I won't know til I get to my bigger screen.
That's just one of the issues I'm trying to understand.
**Note....I'm still on my laptop so while I think they're in focus, I won't know til I get to my bigger screen.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Unless you are showing an assassination, a woman with a 3rd eye or a man emptying a Brink's armored truck with a set of tools from Sears Roebuck, composition does matter. In any of the other cases, you will get paid handsomely by some newspaper good or bad.
This image is in focus at least for the birds beak and the water droplets. You are at f11 and 1/400 sec and using a focal length of 250mm. You might try a faster shitter speed and use a higher ISO than 200. However, I'm not a bird photographer. Also a Better Beamer and flash would help you.
Did you process the image? I see you use Picassa. I know Photoshop. You can do the same in many programs but yours lack the steps I will describe. If Picassa has these capabilities, use them, saving sharpening until last after you are at the image size for delivery on the web, printing or what ever other purpose you have at that time. Each time you have another purpose, the image must be sharpened at that size and for that use.
Let's imagine you have Photoshop. I will give the instructions you can use even with Photoshop 7 in case you have that or can obtain it. Ideally you should have at a CS edition, 1, 2 or CS3. Still, all you need is in Photoshop 7 which you might be able to get legally with a license for little money at all.
Look at the levels histogram in Photoshop. I found that it is a curve in 18% grey with little data at the lower and upper thirds of the histogram. One cannot drag in the right hand limit marker much without whiting out the birds plumage. However you can pull that in a little. Also the lower end, the shadows can be punched up by dragging to the right the right hand slider so as to limit the amount of space with no data.
Now adding a curves layer in Photoshop, you can make a delicate S-shape and bring out a little more detail and presence. Finally select all the layers and paster the result. This can be wonderfully sharpened to make the beak stand out, define the head and then the water drops glisten brilliantly.
Use first say 300%, 0.4 pixels, and then use Edit sharpening in the Edit pulldown menu and switch to Luminosity and fade to 90% or to you taste. Then do another sharpening this time for local contrast and use say 10%, 20 pixels and again fade the sharpening in the luminosity choice.
© Rachel Foster 2008 Edited, cropped and saved as level 6 jpg to conserve space!
I have not ever used Picassa. It may be better than Photoshop for some things, but your images are not as yet optimized as you present them.
Asher
Last edited:
Rachel Foster
New member
That's wonderful, Asher!
I'm on my laptop and CS2 (along with Lightroom and Elements 6) are on my desktop at home.
WOW! That really perks it up, doesn't it?
I'm on my laptop and CS2 (along with Lightroom and Elements 6) are on my desktop at home.
WOW! That really perks it up, doesn't it?
Rachel Foster
New member
I've printed out the instructions and will be going at it bit by bit to learn those photoshop steps. (I never know when to give up, it seems.)
In the meantime, I've gone back to the original river. This is the same section as the image Asher reproduced a few posts back, but shot just a wee bit down river. I've left it uncropped (and, in fact, straight out of the cam). What I was working on here was a larger composition leaving frame of reference and getting the water flow as well. Accordingly, I used a larger aperture and slower shutter speed (ISO 400, focal length 59, f/20, shutter speed 1/30). The lens is IS and it was handheld. I'm pleased with the water movement, but the brightness and contrast are a bit bold for my taste. I'm still pondering what's wrong with the image. As it is, it's a nice snapshot.
(Edited to include the image! D'oh!)
Larger version here.
In the meantime, I've gone back to the original river. This is the same section as the image Asher reproduced a few posts back, but shot just a wee bit down river. I've left it uncropped (and, in fact, straight out of the cam). What I was working on here was a larger composition leaving frame of reference and getting the water flow as well. Accordingly, I used a larger aperture and slower shutter speed (ISO 400, focal length 59, f/20, shutter speed 1/30). The lens is IS and it was handheld. I'm pleased with the water movement, but the brightness and contrast are a bit bold for my taste. I'm still pondering what's wrong with the image. As it is, it's a nice snapshot.
(Edited to include the image! D'oh!)
Larger version here.
Rachel Foster
New member
Ah, the river: My nemisis.
I shot the river today (getting to know my 5d II). Even after a severe crop, it was 2400 x 3000. What a camera!
ISO 400, f/9.0, 67mm, 1/400, handheld; 24-105 IS.
I shot the river today (getting to know my 5d II). Even after a severe crop, it was 2400 x 3000. What a camera!
ISO 400, f/9.0, 67mm, 1/400, handheld; 24-105 IS.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Wider!
Don't bother with anything longer than 28mm. You need to nail composition, not pixels. So get the widest lens you can find. Cropping at home allows you to compose without risking your life and limb on some icy bank.
This is exciting! Just be careful and go with someone else! Otherwise if you slip, it will be in the spring before they find you!
Asher
Don't bother with anything longer than 28mm. You need to nail composition, not pixels. So get the widest lens you can find. Cropping at home allows you to compose without risking your life and limb on some icy bank.
This is exciting! Just be careful and go with someone else! Otherwise if you slip, it will be in the spring before they find you!
Asher
Rachel Foster
New member
This is the original shot. I've conceded semi-defeat with this river. I doubt I'll ever get a decent shot of it, but I've learned a tremendous amount trying.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel,
Don't expect the camera to give you the picture. It won't. Most of the work should be done at the time of the shot. However, you cannot possibly climb to any position or have every lens. So you do your best. Try to get more than you need, return home to the warm and then rethink.
The famous photographers spent many many hours planning, practicing and then except perhaps for Frank Cappa, most all the greats devoted themselves to making the absolute best image from what they recorded with their cameras.
I think you are on the way to claiming your river pictures. It takes nothing but work and talent. Both are tough tools. Here's a version I derived from your picture, even though it's just a small jpg. The histogram shows that the shadows and highlights are clipped. This is where you could use a Sony or Fuji DSLR or else maximize the dynamic range by working at the native ISO which believe is ISO 160. You give up DR a little even at 400 ISO. You used f9.0 and that is not really needed. You could do well with f8 which will pay you back in sharpness and give you slightly less DOF, but it's boring if everything is in perfect focus. This is an ideal case for bracketing too and even a tripod, mirror locked up and a cable release.
© Rachel Foster 2009 edits ADK
I have cropped* the picture to give it a tranquil feeling and then used shadow highlight tool to recover shadows and highlights. It was masked to bring down emphasis on the tops of the trees and sides and lower edge. Sharpening is mostly central and there's a small amount of dodging and burning to make some structures more dimensional. Now this does not make any prize winning picture, but the work does bring out the trees reflected in the water and it has more atmosphere.
Now if you do this with each picture, then you will have the skills for the great scene that you will eventually notice. You wont reach that unless you shoot a lot and then think about what you have and try to make picture work. Even if they end up not being used, each time you think you are being bruised, you are making progress. We must value the part played by each of the components of the picture. So choose the key parts to make important. Lesser objects need to have their rank decreased. Getting perfection in your entire picture will likely kill it.
Just as an example, I found the branch curved from the left over the water, and then went about trying to make it more important. Otherwise what is there? The camera is unlikely to make the picture without such decisions on our part.
Now my own choices with your picture are not anything that you should rely on, as only you can know what might inspire you. It would be impertinent for me to imply that I have any design solution for your own needs; far from it! I am just raising the idea of you working on your pictures much, much more.
So now you have one of the best cameras ever made, you just need to make a check of list and do all the right things over and over again. If I had my way, you'd only have one lens, likely a the 20mm prime. Then you can just hunt for good positions and times of the day. These zoom things are not for you!
I'm excited for you!
Asher
*The cropping is my take and not meant to be taken as a criticism of your decisions. Both work.
Last edited:
janet Smith
pro member
What fantastic advice from Asher! I'm excited for you too, keep at it Rachel, you're definitely getting there!