martin berkas photos

What is the best way to shoot in high contrast conditions (bright

fog/sky and waves, dark rocks)?

Please critique.

Thank you, you have certainly answered my question.

With a fast moving object, I need a quick rule of thumb for metering.

Is there any for a situation like this one, when there are very dark

and very white spots right next to each other?

Thank you for the comments. I think I metered on the darker part of the cloud. I did not use any filters or manipulation after scanning. In fact, the scanned immage looks worse than the original - too much contrast.

This picture is from near the Elfin lakes in BC. the coast makes for

really interesting weather which then makes for really interesting

exposure conditions. what is the right way of metering on snow with

light like this??

i was trying to capture the cool and misty forest while hiking up a

mountains. or just catching my breath?

it's a morning shot and to me it looks underexposed. is there a way

to tell this in advance? i guess this is a long-answer question.

I think this is a great picture. Unfortunately, the categories of "aesthetics" and "originality" may not be the scales I would use why I like it. I think it captures the moment very well and it gives the viewer the impression of spotting a moose in a situation like this.

one morning at garibaldi lake, i noticed two wind blown ridges formed

on the ice behind an island. sometimes they don't look like snow

anymore.

Thanks again for all comments. I agree with the positioning. With respect to Dave's reply, I am quite glad people have different opinions. I don't really care whether others like my pictures or not, but I did want to learn something from putting them here. I don't take photography very seriously, all my shots are just aim and shoot as I walk/hike/ski/climb by, done within a few seconds. I would like to find out some not-too-long ways of doing things better, and it seems to me I can do that from reading the (constructive) comments. I am amazed by the quality of many pictures posted on this website, many here take photography very seriously.

thank you for the comments, i was surprised to see ratings like that on my pictures.

 

i am not sure what is wrong with the piucture confusing the viewer (a fishtail). isn't the beauty of a photo like this one exactly in it's opaqueness? it is a picture of something strange lying in a silty water, making it looking obvious would loose half of the appeal.

 

i am quite new to photography and the comments i have received on

this picture are somewhat contradictory. i would like to find out

whether something is wrong with the way i approached the subject.

I agree thath the biger depth of field would make it more interesting. I am pretty new to photography and it is quite possible I had more dept-of-field freedom when taking the picture, only I did not use it. Next time.

isn't it "Harrod's"?