Jump to content

Wednesday Landscapes, 5 July 2017


Leslie Reid

Recommended Posts

You are invited to upload one or more of your landscape photos and, if you’d like, to accompany your image with some commentary: challenges you faced in making the image? your intent for the image? settings? post-processing decisions? why you did what you did? the place and time? or an aspect you’d like feedback on? And please feel free to ask questions of others who have posted images or to join the discussion. If you don’t feel like using words, that’s OK too—unaccompanied images (or unaccompanied words, for that matter) are also very much welcomed. As for the technicalities, the usual forum guidelines apply: files < 1 MB; image size <1000 px maximum dimension.

 

Thanks for the good info last week on monitor calibration and use—I’ll be putting some of that to use in the near future. I selected my post for this week because it has me puzzled. It was taken at a 27mm zoom on a 1.6 crop-sensor camera, so the equivalent focal length is 43 mm. Which is to say, there shouldn’t be much distortion, and the Lightroom lens correction indeed had little effect (and I hadn't run into a distortion problem before or since with the lens). Yet when I leveled on the water surface at the left of the frame, the right side looked uncomfortably tilted up, and when I leveled by making the reflections vertical, the left side looked like the leading edge of a tsunami. So first, the finished version (ISO 800, f/7.1,1/30 s): I increased the wb to 5650 K and added a lot more saturation and vibrance than I usually do, then I pulled the saturation down in the greens. Finally, I transferred the image to Photoshop and warped the right side to make it look level.

 

D03-_MG_5257-Edit.jpg.9e204c2f89ad0035b1f30b63bab9d3e4.jpg

 

And this was the original before I warped it; it's leveled on the water surface to the left:

 

D03-_MG_5257-2.jpg.b374ae4995cd6b52d9d21af9760fa783.jpg

 

So…any ideas on why the original looks unlevelable?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, Leslie, you demonstrated a classic problem. My Canon 5DS-R has a level in the viewfinder and I try to use it when doing landscapes, for just the situation you present. Your images has no obvious, unambiguous vertical or horizontal guide. I actually think that the first shot may be closer to 'correct". Realize that the curving coastline continues to curve after those rocks and may not reach horizontal, as you've assumed. Sometimes an image will have cues that look like vertical or horizontal and they're false cues. I LOVE my level in the viewfinder.

 

If you were using a tripod, then you can buy a little bubble level that fastens to the flash mount. There are others that attach to the tripod, but, if you're using a ballhead, you really need a level on the camera or in-camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leslie, I think that you are seeing the up-slope of the beach and thinking that it should be level. Also, because of the up-slope, the reflections in the water covered sand should look slightly tilted to the left. I think that your original was level because the whitewater on the left looks level to me, and because the tilt of the reflections is uniform. .
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a shot from last weekend.

 

I've been with Getty for a few years and I find myself thinking of marketability as I take an image. This doesn't mean that I only take shots that I consider marketable, but when the elements align, then I think in those terms. The shot below is basically a landscape with some people in it, schuling in single shells. So, besides thinking of this as a Landscape, I also think of it as "People In Nature", "Lifestyles", "Healthy Lifestyles", "Schuling", etc. Since I'm not going to be able to get model releases, I don't want the people to be identifiable. Since the scene is backlit, I use that to silhouette and obscure the people a bit.

 

34907474893_2c089d34fb_b.jpgReady To Row by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

For this shot, I hand held my Canon 5DS-R out the car window, with my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II at 400mm, f/8 (f/8 and be there), Av Mode, 0EV, resulting in 1/2000-sec, at ISO 400. I leveled in RAW conversion based on that far shore, which is a curving, false horizon. It's so dominant in the image that you have to go with the flow and "level" it, even though I know it's wrong. I left the tree edges in for framing. There's a part of a bench and the lower right, that'll I'll either crop or clone out before sending it to Getty. (I thought it might look good and had a shot or two with it fully in, but I preferred the positions of the boaters in this one). I use DxO's Optics Pro for my RAW conversion and used their ClearView adjustment to reduce haze, which increases Contrast, requiring me to raise EV around 20-points on the DxO scale.

 

Realize that there's nothing earth shattering about this image. I certainly wouldn't put it on my wall and I doubt that even a schuler would, but some magazine or publisher might use it in a lifestyles article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, I hope you don't mind me saying, but I think that ColorEfex overcooked the top edge of those mountains. There's a hard line there, where we expect something like with the second layer of mountains.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DC, thanks for the comment, something to think about. Here is the unmodified original. Well, except that when I adjusted image size to 1,000 pixels wide, Photoshop used "bicubic sharper (best for reductions)". The nearby ridge does look quite distinct in the original without sharpening, but I can try "bicubic" image size reduction without the "sharper" designation. 2007775778_nevadasunrise7-.thumb.jpg.7a169b6c2ed156dfd157a6ea295c1a34.jpg Edited by Glenn McCreery
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, I can't figure out what I'm seeing. Thanks for taking it in the vein intended.

 

It looks almost like there's a blue line tracing the edge of the mountain. The line stops and starts where the back layer of mountains intersects the front layer of mountains, but even there, it looks feathered. I hardly know PS, but I do know that when I Export from LR, it wants to make changes by default and I have to turn those off. I wonder if some default is making changes. DxO is my RAW converter, so I don't really know PS and LR well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is "bicubic" image size reduction without the "sharper" choice. The nearby ridge is still quite distinct, which, I think, is because the ridge is fairly close, within a mile, and because the air is clear, so that aerial perspective (reduced contrast due to light scattering by dust in the air) is reduced. The far mountain range is probably at least thirty miles away, so you would expect more distinct aerial perspective. Perhaps the far ridge looks a bit fuzzier in this version?

 

Dc, I do not see a "blue line" tracing the ridge line in either the original image or the versions presented. Perhaps a difference in monitors?

771234745_nevadasunrise7--.thumb.jpg.ce0a99fa9b24dacdf4cb942daa43ef1e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are invited to upload one or more of your landscape photos and, if you’d like, to accompany your image with some commentary: challenges you faced in making the image? your intent for the image? settings? post-processing decisions? why you did what you did? the place and time? or an aspect you’d like feedback on? And please feel free to ask questions of others who have posted images or to join the discussion. If you don’t feel like using words, that’s OK too—unaccompanied images (or unaccompanied words, for that matter) are also very much welcomed. As for the technicalities, the usual forum guidelines apply: files < 1 MB; image size <1000 px maximum dimension.

 

Thanks for the good info last week on monitor calibration and use—I’ll be putting some of that to use in the near future. I selected my post for this week because it has me puzzled. It was taken at a 27mm zoom on a 1.6 crop-sensor camera, so the equivalent focal length is 43 mm. Which is to say, there shouldn’t be much distortion, and the Lightroom lens correction indeed had little effect (and I hadn't run into a distortion problem before or since with the lens). Yet when I leveled on the water surface at the left of the frame, the right side looked uncomfortably tilted up, and when I leveled by making the reflections vertical, the left side looked like the leading edge of a tsunami. So first, the finished version (ISO 800, f/7.1,1/30 s): I increased the wb to 5650 K and added a lot more saturation and vibrance than I usually do, then I pulled the saturation down in the greens. Finally, I transferred the image to Photoshop and warped the right side to make it look level.

 

[ATTACH=full]1196719[/ATTACH]

 

And this was the original before I warped it; it's leveled on the water surface to the left:

 

[ATTACH=full]1196720[/ATTACH]

 

So…any ideas on why the original looks unlevelable?

 

Perhaps barrel distortion, Leslie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...