peter_daalder

Jana, I like to think that Kah Kit Yoong is the master of Tasmanian scenery.

This is a superb piece of work, Matthew.

The bold bright solar orb pulls the eye straight into this composition. It sits in a perfect position and beautifully illuminates the layers of mist in the bottom half of the frame.

I would like to ask if this was, at all, cropped from the original exposure. The size of the Sun seems somewhat bigger than what I would expect from a 105mm lens, even with the 1.5x crop factor of your D300.

The automatically downsized versions show some loss but not as much as I'd expected.

Yeah, you're right...

I've checked out the flower and only noticed some minor artifacts along the edge of one of the petals.

Your upload test has made me consider a rethink about the image quality after PN downsizing.

In some (many?) cases it might be a non-issue, compared to the incredible wide variety of computer screens/displays out there...

Or, to be more specific, what screen resolution are people using, is it too dark, is it too bright, contrast, dot pitch?

The tree is pretty much the same today. They obviously keep it well trimmed...

Other than that, I can only add Ken Williams' alternative, as it was added in the 2003 thread.

Lex, I still maintain that the default view of portfolio images can be affected, when a member posts an image that is wider than the 'standard view' of 680 pixels in the horizontal dimension.

Clearly, this image above, falls within that parameter and should be unaffected.

In any event, going to the "Larger" view will always allow viewers to look at the original upload...

BTW, I like the 'apparent' extra detail in this, due to the additional sharpening.

A personal favourite, without a doubt...

I went to some trouble to make sure that the wheel was incorporated in the composition.

Appreciate the feedback, Lex!

Cheers, Lex.

Funny, I honestly have never noticed the resemblance between land and cloud formations. Appreciate you pointing this out, as it is a reminder that I still need to "look" more carefully/thoughtfully, whilst composing and/or post processing.

BTW, once more, the full credit for this creation goes to Philip and Louise Osborne, of Epping Forest. You might like to have a look at their effort for 2008.

Unfortunately, someone spoiled the farmer's fun...

Paolo, I have little experience with HDR, so you'll have to take my comment with a grain of salt...

This image looks somewhat 'flat', which prompted me to have a play with it in Photoshop.

I don't expect you to approve of the reworked version, but it is simply how I would have submitted it for critique...

Thanks for your views and comments, Lex, Pankaj, Aaron and Pierre.

Ok, the polarization is perhaps overdone, but that is a personal preference and it is not the first time that I've been taken to task about that aspect of my landscaping.

A few months ago, I uploaded another version of this subject. I found the vertical format and spectacular sky much more appealing to this horizontal view. However, apart from a few ratings, it didn't attract any feedback. Which was somewhat of a surprise...

Aaron, if you check out the previous image, you'll get a better idea of what you're looking at. Metal support pillars mounted on railway carriages, which are used for the transportation of trees/logs.

The tight framing at the bottom was done deliberately to make this more of an abstract creation. Shot with the Canon 20D and a 10-22mm lens, at the wide end.

Once again, thanks to you all for stopping by.

Thanks very much, but you already did quite comprehensively.

My fault for wiping my entire portfolio around September 2007.

Here's what you wrote in 2005:

Doug Burgess , March 31, 2005; 02:33 P.M.

I'll add this to my White Churches After Ansel Adams file. I like this shot. In terms of angle, you couldn't have eliiminated the tree if you'd tried, it looks to me. Too crowded. How would you feel about a version with high, thin, transparent clouds? This veiw might feel somewhat denuded, and the cloudier veiw sky-heavy. High, thin clouds would lessen the deep blue, but just a little. I'm not talking about a white sky, but one a wee bit less intense, that would still contrast magnificently with the red roof, but wouldn't be so strong. The sky is actually the largest per square inch part of the frame, which I why a little break-up might help. Bad idea?

Also, watchout if you shoot this in black and white. Polarizor only, and maybe yellow. I have a red-roof white church my way, and mistakenly shot it with a red filter to black-up the sky, but it destroyed the red/white contrast, which became light gray/white. But, you probably knew that.

G'day Robert, thanks for viewing and commenting...

You could be right, but I deliberately didn't clone out the eucalypts on the RH side... They grow to a maximum of about 30 metres

Extremely saturated this was not, but saturated nonetheless, indeed.

I wouldn't have called this "wet" either, but it was certainly not dry... The soles of my boots increased their thickness by about half an inch of mud, when I walked out of this farm dam.

Thanks for your views and comments Maajed and Dave. Much appreciated...

Doug, this was a lucky shot. Just being in the right place, at the right time.

You wouldn't want to see this today... The shed is falling into disrepair and changes have been made to the foreground and background (a large vineyard has been established on those hills).

Makes me feel like a kind of documentary photographer, who had the opportunity to record this scene before it got 'spoiled'.

Great pose! Ready to strike...

I like the detail in this shot and the fluorescent quality of the spider.

A superb effort, Brad!

However, I do find that the 'crown' in the lower right section competes with the main subject for my attention. Perhaps, this was intentional...

Here's an image that I came across a bit over three years ago. I couldn't help compare and I hope that you can see where my preference goes.

Marc stated that he was surprised by how difficult it is to shoot the Moon.

Regardless of that sentiment, I think that this is a fine effort = a successful effort.

I went on to list a couple of factors that contribute to this degree of difficulty. At these focal lengths, shutter speed (and mirror lock-up) become very important aspects of getting a successful outcome.

Marc's image was taken a a relatively low magnification. Go any higher and the degree of difficulty multiplies...

You've got a telescope, so no doubt you'll appreciate that apart from atmospheric conditions, altitude of the object, polar alignment and rotation of the Earth, you also have to account for the orbital motion of the Moon.

I never get tired of our nearest neighbour in space.

Cheers, Doug.

I looked up the original and found the following details:

Canon 5D with 50mm f1.8 set to f4.0 at ISO 100 and an exposure time of 1/60 sec.

I live on a bush lot, way out of town, so when the sun goes down it is dark. No city afterglow, no streetlights, nada.

The fashion in which Doug has isolated this subject from the surrounding blackness, does not allow us to determine whether it was an overcast night, with no Moon in the sky.

I have spent many years with my telescope(s) under clear dark skies, away from any city lights. Once your eyes get accustomed to the dark, you can see quite a lot, particularly on a clear night with starry skies overhead.

I'm sure you will have experienced plenty of these clear dark nights yourself.

Becoming familiar with all the imaginary star patterns, or constellations, allows you to find your way around after dark. The stars truly are beacons for navigation. What then becomes really unnerving, are those dark nights, when cloud covers the entire firmament.

I'm sure your encounter with a tornado would have been much more harrowing indeed...

This is an image I can really relate to. Especially, since I had to struggle with the depth of field issue myself.

Where's that tripod, when you really need it?

Spare a thought for all of those who have been caught out by a nocturnal tornado...

Unnerving, without a doubt.