vincetylor

How's Europe KW? You being good?

Thanks Len for stopping by. Yes, I have been busy improving my portfolio, rescanning certain images or just improving through some re-editing with the newer Photoshop capabilities unavailable when I first worked on these. Plus I have much more experience now than before. A few tweaks can make a noticable difference at times.

 

In this image, I have already hopped over the railing and am standing with feet on the very edge itself. Any further and you could be attending my funeral. There is no waterfall blur because there was no room for a tripod. When I first started shooting, I would often take some fairly significant risks just to "get the shot". Nowadays, I usually look for safer angles than what this called for. Though the last time I was here, I still hopped over. But did not get to the edge of the edge. I'd like to think I am smarter nowadays...

 

But who are we kidding...

 

PS- Send me an address, I will ship you a print of this on me. You have been great to have visit, as you have done many times. Your opinions have always been helpful and appreciated Len!

New version posted 6-07

New Scan posted 6-07

Yes Doug, I do remember that trip through my folders by the "balance brigade". And to show how far things have regressed at Pnet, those were the "good ole days"....

 

: )

 

 

Peace to you and yours,

 

Vince

New, larger image uploaded 6-07.

Thanks Walt. I would like to see if I have any with less sky as well, but I don't think so. Back when I took this, several years ago, I often composed locations like this here with more than 1/3 sky. Closer to 1/2 actually. Some of my newer images from this location, and from any location for that matter, are composed a little more 2/3 rule of thumb. But then again, what's really correct and incorrect when it comes to capturing a scene like this? I just liked how it looked...

 

Thanks for the visit and taking the time to share your thoughts.

 

All the best,

 

Vince

Thanks Dave. Have still yet to post for quite some time. I will put up something soon though. Just nowhere near the same here as in years past. But many of us have extensive portfolios accumulated from over the years that are still worth maintaining in my opinion. I hope you keep up your images too. Forget the ratings. The anonymous lowballing is always going to be around until they put names back on the ratings. And then mate-rating will most likely continue flourishing. Like I said, forget the ratings as much as possible. Not an easy thing to do though sometimes, I must admit. The TRP is the weakest since I have been a member in my book. Thanks for dropping back by.

 

A hui hou,

 

Vince

Uploaded a new version 6-17-07.

Thanks Walter, DONE.

Uploaded a new scan 6-13-07.

Here is a side by side, easy to compare attachment. The top version is your unedited image. The lower was only darkened, nothing more. (I could have darkened more judicially here, but this still gives you an idea). By posting side by side, you can more easily see that your initial version is just too bright down low and subsequently causing all of these other issues in the process. It is too bright down low because you used too many filters up top. The camera correctly read the upper, larger portion when exposing this. Good thing too.

I believe the problem is twofold: the shallow, dark ,muddy foreground, AND even more importantly, too many filters up top. Here is a similar example, that came back to my mind through this discussion.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5378231

 

You can see how unnatural the foreground reflection looks in that daytime image. But yet the culprit appears to have been the same thing as in your image here; A very shallow, muddy bottom.

 

 

Also, when I look at both of your vertical attachments above, you can clearly see a difference in the foreground between the two images. That "filtered" version is definitely different than the non-filtered version.

 

 

 

What has in fact really added to this dilemma now, is the fact that you used TWO different ND filters, as well as the colored filter on the top of this image, where the bottom ONLY has the slight effect of the tapered off sunset orange filter. In other words the foreground portion is really TOO BRIGHT for the rest of the scene, therefore colors have been comparatively washed out.

 

 

Here is an attachment where the only thing I did was darken the foreground area. By doing so, you can see that more of that orange color is NOW THERE, and a more natural balance achieved. Before, with your original upload, the forground is too bright due to the fact that you over compensated with the three filters you used on the sky. The balancing effect of the filters in effeect went TOO far. The foreground is now too bright, washing out the orange colors in the process. That along with the shallow muddy bottom is why we have orange color missing in this image.

 

 

At least we can move on to other things in life. : )

 

 

I would suggest only using one or two (at the most) filters at a time. Especially when shooting well after the sun is gone down, like here. I knew right away that did not quite sound right. Have a good one Tyler. A nice discussion for sure!

Can you attach a few of those images from the last couple nights Tyler? We'll get this figured out. If the water is really shallow and the muddy bottom very dark, that could eat up a bit of that color. But the fact that we do have the mast clearly reflected, would lend me to think the sky color should also be reflected. Especially in the lower right corner, where there is pretty good light.

R.G. said:...."As for the foreground color, it seems to me that the water at your feet is simply reflecting the blue sky above your head, not the orange light from the horizon. Looks natural to me."

 

 

and,

 

 

K.M. said:.."I agree with Richard that the bottom third is reflecting the blue sky above."

 

 

 

**** Yes, the bottom is reflecting the blue sky. And that is the PROBLEM with the image. There is no blue sky in the image itself!

 

 

Look at the TWO masts in this scene. You have the real one with a very colorful, orange sky in the background. And then you have the reflection of that very same mast, only without ANY of that same color.

 

The blue sky that you both see reflected is what was actually THERE that evening. The problem we have is that he used an orange filter on the real sky which gives this a very nice aesthetic quality. Now, I am not an Einstein here, but folks, put on your thinking caps; a reflection is a mirror image of the real thing. You cannot have two very different skies in the very same image. If the first is orange, then so should the reflection. Or, if the reflection is blue, then so should the original image.

 

 

It may be many things, including sellable and usable. But it is not natural. And THAT is what can happen if filters are not used correctly. Trust me, I have found this out the hard way.

That's one heck of a detailed reply Tyler. I think my eyes are burning. : )

 

 

 

 

I've read your thoughts, talked it over with my son as well, and we both feel fairly (though not 100 percent), certain that there would be SOME color down low IF that filter was actually hitting that portion of the scene. Though any of your explanations could work, it just seems that we'd get some color in that area, especially to the bottom right corner. There seems to be plenty of light down there, which would allow that color to show up.

 

But whatever the case, it is correctable in my opinion. Here is a "quick-fix" version. This is also the size I'd recommend you post provided you want the large view at all. If not, then by posting 680 pixels wide, you will lose no quality at all in the default view. Though there then would be NO large view at all. If you want both the large and default smaller views, then somewhere around 850 pixels wide, at 96 DPI is what I usually post at. Though the default view suffers some from compression.

 

This is not a big enough issue to lose any sleep over. Just be sure the filter is used in ALL of the scene when you use it in the future, at least if there is water below.

 

I just noticed that this image is on the TRP first page. Congrats on that. The extra exposure you will receive does have some nice benefits.

 

Keep on shooting. Thanks for the discussion.

PS- For me, David's crop works very nicely. You may wish to post a smaller large view Tyler. People could download and use such a large image file for many applications today. Aloha.

Appreciate your detailed reply Tyler. You certainly do have a thirst for learning. This is great to see.

 

I have used the P-197 filter for years. And what you have accomplished right here, is exactly why I have used that filter at times. It is a very natural looking filter. However, I also have experience with some of the problems that can arise from using that or any colored filter. One of the filters that have caused me problems is using the P124; that is a tobacco filter. It works quite nicely when used correctly. This image here is one where it produced very satisfying results in my view.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1191583&size=md

 

However, that P124 is a SPLIT filter, where only the top half is colored while the bottom is clear. It is not designed for using when there is any kind of water on the bottom half. Doing so will in most all cases give it away, especially if there is a reflection involved, because the bottom portion will be missing the very same color that it is reflecting. I have seen this happen too many times actually with other photographers.

 

Here is an example:

 

http://www.webshots.com/g/33/647-sh/58392.html

 

 

You can easily see there is a problem with that image since the reflection -which is very clear- does not have any of the color in the sky that is in the image itself. In other words, that reflection is how the scene actually looked. The actual image then, above the reflection, was taken with a colored filter. There is no way around this fact. One simply cannot do this without getting caught by somebody with a critical eye. If you read the comments, you will see that is exactly what happened.

 

 

This is what I see happening here Tyler. What told me that a colored filter was used here to begin with was just one thing; the lower portion REFLECTION. Especially on the bottom right, where there is still plenty of light, and where you have a portion of the boat's mast in that reflection. The image itself is in a blaze of orange. The reflection of that part of the scene however is colorless. That is unnatural.

 

 

Because the P-197 is not a split colored filter (like the 124 mentioned above), but is colored throughout, if you had used that filter on the entire scene, including the bottom, then that bottom portion would have some of that color as well. What I believed happened is that you had several filters (as you already stated above), going at one time, and the 197 was not quite pushed down all the way. *IF* that filter was pushed all the way down, then that bottom portion will absolutely have some of that orange color. It's nothing to do with angles here at all Tyler, since you have already stated that you did use that filter on this scene. Regardless of the angle then, the lower portion would have some color since there is plenty of light to display that color and the *filter itself* would be the source of that color. The fact that the upper portion DOES have color, is what gives it away for me. Many people may never catch this issue. You could still use the image, just as is in fact. But a critical eye will catch this issue almost 100 percent of the time. And since this is a learning site, it's a great subject to discuss and learn about.

 

 

If you go back to this same location again, and make sure the filter is pushed all the way down, you will see that bottom portion will pick up the color from the filter.

 

 

Thanks for the nice discussion Tyler.

 

All the best, Vince

Hi Tyler. Nice to see you using that Tokina. I really like the lighting on the upper water, the sky and especially on the boat itself. The darker left side is not a problem for me. This is a late sunset anyway. In my opinion the fading light adds value here, and does not detract at all. I wouild let it be.

 

What does create an issue for me here, is that the lower portion water line, with the reflection, does not have any color at all. The boat sail masts are silhoutted against a very colorful sky. Yet the reflection below SHOULD pick up most of that color as well. This does not look quite natural as we see it presented here.

 

If you used a colored filter on this image (and I have no problems with photographers doing just that), it would appear that you did not bring the filter line low enough. You can more easily get away with an issue like this, provided the foreground has NO water in it. The Water foreground however will pick up some of that sky color in the reflection. When it's missing, like this here, it can be a dead give away.

 

If you did not use a colored filter, then I am not sure why the lower water portion would be missing most all of that nice orange fire.

 

Would be curious to hear your thoughts.

 

Overall, this still has much going for it. You can even add some color down low through photoshop fairly easily.

 

Keep up the good work Tyler.

Nice work KW! You've always had a knack for B&W pal. Happy to see you make it back to the seashore too.

 

Two minor suggestions here from me. I'd probably like to see the top left sea stack with just a little space to breathe. Though that is just a personal preference. And secondly, because the rocks and shoreline are darker, it may have been a better balaced image if you used an ND here. The sky looks a little bit too bright, especially when compared with that darker shoreline.

 

Here is an attachment with some minor adjustments to both.

 

Still VERY nice capture just as it is.

 

Look forward to more from you!

Thanks Will. Hickam military base is a nice account for us. Northshore waves are 20 plus tomorrow. And there is the possibility of tsunami now. Hope you are more than cautious. Many have been caught off-guard. A hui hou!

Thanks Dave! That's a nice surprise. I also look forward to seeing some of your new kick-butt stuff.

 

Yep Anthony, I was all done and finished for the day and laying down on the ground with my water next to the Washington Monument. Then the thought entered into my mind to try something like you see here with Lincoln's Memorial. I was Carl Lewis for about ten minutes with backpack, camera bag, tripod...

 

: )

Actually I've been editing my 100 plus rolls Shenendoah National Park trip from two years ago. The three years ago 200 plus rolls Pacific Northwest trip will follow though. Sheesh, that sounds pretty lame...

Unfortunately, my a** has to spend more time in front of a computer than out in the field lately. Though the day should come where freedom reigns. But not yet...

 

Poor Cowboys yesterday. I thought they had it won KW...

 

Even Poorer Redskins last month...

 

: (

New version attachment.