Jump to content

Fading Glow


marcadamus

From the category:

Landscape

· 290,304 images
  • 290,304 images
  • 1,000,004 image comments


Recommended Comments

I love everything about this. The shape of the clouds mirrors the water so beautifully. One thing you do really well is hide the transition line from the 3-stop hard edge ND. In cases like this, I always lose the tops of the rocks behind the dark part of the filter. Here it is pretty much imperceptible. Any tips you can offer would be much appreciated.

 

Anish

Link to comment

Love the glow in the sky and the tones, as well as details in the shadow. I am really surprised how you are able to get the sharpness with elements so close to the lens with f-13. I have 16-35 but not the L-2 version, and I am not fully satisfied with it. May be L-2 the answer?

 

I love your seascapes, not just for the color but the composition and dynamic nature. I have seen pretty much each picture many times, trying to learn about them. They are the inspiration to visit the oregon coast. Most other books I have seen have the same places, similar shots in nature, but non touch the beauty of your images.

 

This one however does not attract me as much though. Please take it positively. I think the row of the rocks starting from rocks and extending into the open ocean is definitely great compositional element. The light and the water channels right from the bottom edge are desired too. However combining them in the frame hasn't really felt as much appealing. Don't want to compare with other pictures, cause it totally based on perception, but your other shots like "Forces of creation" or "Flames" or "Transformation" unimaginably enthralling and probably the most beautiful shot I felt "Ocean view falls".

 

You mentioned about the article about pacific coast in the past and I am looking forward to seeing it.

 

Regards

+Lalit

 

 

Link to comment

Marc, I'm pretty new to photography in general (only picking up a camera for the first time ever a couple of years ago for fun, yet I just started trying to shoot more seriously since this past summer-so I'm definitely a newbie at this!).

 

Landscapes intrigue me and the one thing I've noticed about your work is that you show extreme passion in every image you present. You find the real beauty in the places you shoot. This inspires me to try to be a better photographer. Thank you for always being so forthcoming with the way you capture an image. I appreciate it and I know others do too. This is but one of many beautiful images in your collection. Thanks for sharing it, Kristy :)

Link to comment
Another fantastic shot Marc. I would prefer if the rocks had a little more light on them especially those on the sides of the image. I was also wondering what are the main differences you see with your new camera versus the 5D? So far both look the same to me as your 5D shots are simply stunning.
Link to comment

Eldar, the detail that can be recorded by the 5D isn't anywhere close to what I'm seeing with my 1Ds III files at 100%. This type of detail isn't visible in such small web presentations.

 

Lalit, it's just a matter of artistic preference as usual. I don't like the 'Ocean View Falls' shot nearly as much because I don't think it's as compositionally fluid as this one, nor has the same emotional impact. Lots of images to please lots of different people I hope.

 

The 16-35 II is definitely an improvement over the first version and the 17-40 in the areas of edge to edge sharpness at f13, but the DOF. capabilities remain the same.

Link to comment

Marc,

 

Fantastic image! I really like the water treatment, colors and perspective in this one. It's got a nice subtle drama to it. Have you noticed much of a difference carrying this camera while hiking compared to the 5D? Would you use this camera or the 5D if you were on a long winter backpack trip? Just curious...

Link to comment

Marc,

The shadow detail is very well rendered and the closed foreground gives a great sense of depth and palce. Your choice of shutter speed was, as always, impeccable. My only problem with it is the appearance of the clouds. The shape is not readily apparent and, because there is not much color variation, appears slightly flat. That, of course, is not your fault at all (unless you really went overboard in post)... sometimes the sky just doesn't agree with the land.

 

I see that you are using a new camera. I was just wondering what your overall opinion is regarding the practicality of such a camera for the type of work you do. In terms of durability and build quality it's clearly better suited to being outdoors... the 5D has needed a body upgrade since it was released. I guess my primary questions are:

a. Do you find the size of the camera inhibits portability on long treks?

b. Have you found that your glass is of high enough resolving power to take full advantage of the 21mp sensor?

c. Have you seen an improvement in DR and noise performance during long exposures?

Link to comment
No, but it does prove that Nikon is finally attempting to develop a platform for image sensors that may actually compete with Canon's high-end cameras for the first time within a year or two.
Link to comment

Marc makes a good point about sensor performance. There isn't a huge difference between the two, else Nikon would long ago have died off, but there is still a difference. As a D200 shooter, I definitely will admit to sensor envy regarding the 5D and the 1Ds MKIII. If Nikon didn't offer superior build quality, weather sealing, ergonomics/usability, and better portable lighting system, I probably would have gone Canon.The problem is, Canons cost too much considering the quality of everything except the sensor. If Nikon would up the quality of its sensors and Canon would up the quality of it build quality, everyone could go back to selection based on brand loyalty, rather than choosing which sacrifices to make. By the way, this isn't meant to be a Nikon vs. Canon dick measuring contest. Obviously Canon has done something right.... you prove that every time you press the shutter release....

 

....that said.... do you think that you would consider future FX Nikons? After all, even my cheapish $800 18-200 VR out-resolves Canon's 16-35 albeit with much more distortion and a bit higher CA. (OK, that was Canon vs. Nikon..... couldn't resist that jab ;)

 

By the way, are you happy with the tripod model you chose? I'm looking to purchase a new tripod and was considering a Carbon Fibre Gitzo for a quality, lightweight tripod. I figure that it's easier to add weight to a tripod than it is to remove weight, so the extra $$$ for CF could, potentially, be justified.

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...