Photography Thread
Comments
-
Read a photography book a while ago that had a section on shooting food.
In the pro shoots the food is basically inedible to get it to look "right".The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
Read a photography book a while ago that had a section on shooting food.
In the pro shoots the food is basically inedible to get it to look "right".
Ha! Mine are always edible enough that I'm not going to fanny about for too long taking photos of it before it goes in my gob. Might have to edit my verb if the censor kicks in...0 -
-
That's the difference between us and paid pros. 😉briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:Read a photography book a while ago that had a section on shooting food.
In the pro shoots the food is basically inedible to get it to look "right".
Ha! Mine are always edible enough that I'm not going to fanny about for too long taking photos of it before it goes in my gob. Might have to edit my verb if the censor kicks in...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Finally getting round to doing some photography instead of family snaps.
Make the most of things, when the rain has been falling seek out the waterfalls.
Lesson learned - I should have used a higher ISO to get faster shooting speed as the water was flowing faster than normal. Walking with the wife precluded doing re-shoots. Next time solo...
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.4 -
Is that Lydford Gorge, PB? Years since I've been there, so memory is hazy.0
-
I quite like the blurry candyfloss water, PB.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
I quite like the blurry candyfloss water, PB.
Me too - it's an effect I've still not mastered in my lazy auto snapping mode.0 -
Not a gorge, just a stream made to look more impressive. 😉
I've moved away from the milky effect and prefer a halfway house. Show motion but keep detail in the droplets. Anyway, all that is required for the milky effect is a tripod and a long shutter speed, say 2 to 3 seconds. I go for more like 1/5th second, when I remember! 🤣The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I Googled Lydford Gorge, yeah, nothing as impressive as that! 🤣
Get close with a wide angle lens and perceptions are distorted.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
I do like a bit of long exposure stuff. I need to go back to Watersmeet at some point and catch it before the tourists arrive. In an ideal world I’d like to get one good enough to frame to give to the wife as it is her favourite place. Try to replicate the painting we bought on our first trip there after getting married.3
-
-
More waterfalls today.
Opinions please. Blurred or frozen? Thanks.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
In this one I think I prefer the bottom one1
-
That's why I asked. Normally I go straight for some blur at least, but.... Thanks!Pross said:In this one I think I prefer the bottom one
FYI - 1/1000 second.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I love a long exposure waterfall shot even if they are a bit cliched. For me the top one maybe wasn’t as long as necessary to get the ethereal effect I like but I know you said in the other post that is something you’re trying.pblakeney said:
That's why I asked. Normally I go straight for some blur at least, but.... Thanks!Pross said:In this one I think I prefer the bottom one
FYI - 1/1000 second.
0 -
First one at 1/13th is as slow as I could get.Pross said:
I love a long exposure waterfall shot even if they are a bit cliched. For me the top one maybe wasn’t as long as necessary to get the ethereal effect I like but I know you said in the other post that is something you’re trying.pblakeney said:
That's why I asked. Normally I go straight for some blur at least, but.... Thanks!Pross said:In this one I think I prefer the bottom one
FYI - 1/1000 second.
Base ISO and closed right down to a maximum and less than preferable f22. Cloudy days are better for waterfalls.
PS - For waterfalls the speed of flow has a huge impact. I probably would have went for 1/20th or faster once seen on the bigger screen.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Interesting that the 'frozen' one has more of sense of movement than the long exposure one.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yup, all to do with the speed of flow. Lesson learned, there is no set speed to achieve a set result. Must have been a nightmare back in film days!rjsterry said:Interesting that the 'frozen' one has more of sense of movement than the long exposure one.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
One simply brilliant new piece of trompe l'oeil - the only two real things in this photo are the door on the right, and me on my bike - otherwise it's a flat, blank wall. I struck lucky with the time of arrival, so the sun was in just the right place.
3 -
A local walk today, benefiting from the crystal-clear air from the brisk northerly...
2 -
Three from today. A couple of artistics and one of digging deep on the final lap.
Note the TV producer decided to show the chasing 3 instead of the reverse of the third. 🤣
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
There's a certain satisfaction in making a 6000ft mountain a mere background for a flower photo.
5 -
I've been trying to teach myself how to use Lightroom and had a play around with my favourite photo. The AI noise reduction was a little bit aggressive so the castle has lost some of its detail but I'm much happier with the sky now. Need some clear nights to try a few more astro landscapes it hasn't been a good summer for it so far.
6 -
I don't use LR but I gather from watching podcasts etc that your next step is to learn to use Masks to remove the NR from the castle, or local increased sharpening.Pross said:I've been trying to teach myself how to use Lightroom and had a play around with my favourite photo. The AI noise reduction was a little bit aggressive so the castle has lost some of its detail but I'm much happier with the sky now...
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yep, I used the masks which allowed me to adjust settings for certain parts of the photo e.g. there's one that automatically detects the sky so you can adjust the highlights etc. without impacting the rest of the photo or you can select certain areas to highlight them which I'd been playing around with and I think has helped massively with the overall effect. I applied the noise reduction automatically though and probably could have used a lower number.pblakeney said:
I don't use LR but I gather from watching podcasts etc that your next step is to learn to use Masks to remove the NR from the castle, or local increased sharpening.Pross said:I've been trying to teach myself how to use Lightroom and had a play around with my favourite photo. The AI noise reduction was a little bit aggressive so the castle has lost some of its detail but I'm much happier with the sky now...
There's a professional who does some stunning night sky shots in my neck of the woods who has a load of presets you can buy from him along with tutorials so I might get those in time. His work can be viewed here https://alynwallacephotography.com/brecon-beacons-astrophotography-dark-sky
0 -
Mackerel sky, mackerel sky. Could be wet, could be dry.
3 -
Not so keen on the trails but the others are stunning!Pross said:
Yep, I used the masks which allowed me to adjust settings for certain parts of the photo e.g. there's one that automatically detects the sky so you can adjust the highlights etc. without impacting the rest of the photo or you can select certain areas to highlight them which I'd been playing around with and I think has helped massively with the overall effect. I applied the noise reduction automatically though and probably could have used a lower number.pblakeney said:
I don't use LR but I gather from watching podcasts etc that your next step is to learn to use Masks to remove the NR from the castle, or local increased sharpening.Pross said:I've been trying to teach myself how to use Lightroom and had a play around with my favourite photo. The AI noise reduction was a little bit aggressive so the castle has lost some of its detail but I'm much happier with the sky now...
There's a professional who does some stunning night sky shots in my neck of the woods who has a load of presets you can buy from him along with tutorials so I might get those in time. His work can be viewed here https://alynwallacephotography.com/brecon-beacons-astrophotography-dark-skyThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I really ought to sell my services to Drôme cyclo-tourism, if it weren't for the fact I'm not allowed to work in France any more 😜
That's a 1500m mountain (les Trois Becs) in the background, and I'm on a lovely signposted back-roads cycle route between Allex and Crest
1 -
Agreed, star trail photos and OK as a bit of a novelty but for me it is all about the night sky enhancing a landscape. I now want to get out and do more, there's a new moon next week and a few possibly clear nights - I just need my car to be fixable when it goes into the garage on Monday to take advantage!pblakeney said:
Not so keen on the trails but the others are stunning!Pross said:
Yep, I used the masks which allowed me to adjust settings for certain parts of the photo e.g. there's one that automatically detects the sky so you can adjust the highlights etc. without impacting the rest of the photo or you can select certain areas to highlight them which I'd been playing around with and I think has helped massively with the overall effect. I applied the noise reduction automatically though and probably could have used a lower number.pblakeney said:
I don't use LR but I gather from watching podcasts etc that your next step is to learn to use Masks to remove the NR from the castle, or local increased sharpening.Pross said:I've been trying to teach myself how to use Lightroom and had a play around with my favourite photo. The AI noise reduction was a little bit aggressive so the castle has lost some of its detail but I'm much happier with the sky now...
There's a professional who does some stunning night sky shots in my neck of the woods who has a load of presets you can buy from him along with tutorials so I might get those in time. His work can be viewed here https://alynwallacephotography.com/brecon-beacons-astrophotography-dark-sky0
