Jump to content

frigo

Exposure Date: 2013:09:22 08:56:21;
Make: NIKON CORPORATION;
Model: NIKON D200;
ExposureTime: 10/3500 s;
FNumber: f/10;
ISOSpeedRatings: 400;
ExposureProgram: Normal program;
ExposureBiasValue: 0/6;
MeteringMode: Pattern;
Flash: Flash did not fire;
FocalLength: 10 mm;
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm: 15 mm;
Software: Ver.2.00 ;


From the category:

Landscape

· 290,362 images
  • 290,362 images
  • 1,000,006 image comments


Recommended Comments

Same church,but different sky.The fast moving clouds came up on the

steeples and broke up giving the impression that they were coming from

the twin peaks.What do you think?Thank you-Laurent

Link to comment

Looks like a polarizer caused the black blob in the sky.  Some may find this appealing, but in this instance I think it is distracting.  Although it does appear that the church is letting off some steam as you suggest!  When using a polarizer on an ultra-wide, one must be very careful with banding and blobs in sky and water. 

Link to comment

The problem is my brain "knows" the clouds are much higher than the steeple, and it doesn't let my imagination kick in to think the steeple is splitting the clouds....the impression just doesn't form for me.  The central black spot in the sky is a significant issue, IMO.  I think this would have greater appeal if the sky were uniform (or nearly so) from left to right.

Link to comment

You are right about the polarizer being responsible for the darkened sky;although I am keen of this,I appreciate that this is not to all's taste and know it can be downright irritating to some.Here,the dense area  was nicely contained between the split cloud and I thought it actually contributed to the image but obviously not that much.I thank you for looking in and for the valuable input.

Merci et meilleures salutations-Laurent

Link to comment

The fast moving cloud was coming over the steeples and I shot a few frames;it was really only once on the screen that I realized there was the split and it was pretty much distributed evenly over the two peaks.I  appreciate your opinion on the polarized sky and guess I should ease off on some of these shots to see how it works for me.I thank you for looking in and for the valuable observation.

Meilleures salutations-Laurent

Link to comment

Laurent, you might try getting the clouds to white on the right side, just as they are on the left, and see how that changes the look of the photo.  I have a feeling the nearly black sky might be more interesting if it were bounded by equal whites on both sides.  That would be relatively easy to do with Nik software; I'm not sure how it would be done with either PS or other plug-ins (Nik is what I use for situations like this).

Link to comment

I don't have Nik and my PP skill level is basic but I gave it a run with my Windows 7 photo tool package;not great but maybe a little better(see attached).Thank you again for the suggestion.

Meilleures salutations-Laurent

25500590.jpg
Link to comment

Laurent, I gave it a try with Nik. It did what I wanted with the clouds. I also was able to lighten the black to near-blue (and I liked the overall results), but there were some red and green color artifacts that would take more time and know-how than I have. Anyway, it's all subjective, but I'll attach the output from Nik.

25500628.jpg
Link to comment

The Nik treatment you applied worked out pretty good and the whiter clouds did bring the balance you mentioned.Yes,I also like it and thank you for taking the time to elaborate on this.

Merci et meilleures salutations-Laurent 

Link to comment

I think that the black hole is magnified by whitening the cloud.  And I know that by trying to lighten the black hole that the hole will become pixelated.  Perhaps you could try a darkening blend to the upper right side?  I know it's not what you had envisioned, but it's really hard to fix a polarizing error.  Did you shoot this without a polarizer?  Was a polarizing filter necessary?  Just a few thoughts.  Regards, Jeff 

Link to comment

Some folks may like the nearly black sky above the church.  There are other times when using a polarizer on a wide-angle lens that the sky will simply go from light blue to dark blue to light blue again.  While some folks don't mind that, personally I think the the variation looks too unnatural.  As a result, I never use a polarizer on a wide angle lens if the sky is included in the frame.  I think a polarizer is still useful on a wide-angle when trying to remove the shine from vegetation.  That's just my experience and preference.

Link to comment

I agree with you Stephen.  My experience is that it's usually OK to use it on sky when it's very cloudy and not much blue.  And often I like to use a polarizer on wide to remove the glare from water and to see to the bottom of shallow pools. 

Link to comment

The use of the polarizer here was to achieve this effect.As unatural as it may seem,I rather like this but realize that it and the exagerated lean induced by the WA lense on the steeples are features that can be quite irritant to some;guess it boils down to a matter of taste.I thank you for taking time on this one and for the valuable input.

Meilleures salutations-Laurent

Link to comment

You summarized it very nicely;matter of taste and preference.Thank you also for the valuable insight.

Meilleures salutations-Laurent

Link to comment

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...