dave.englund

David, when we speak of the "North Shore" we are talking about a stretch of Hwy 61 from Duluth Minnesota to Grand Portage Minnesota (or, to the Canadian border, Grand Portage is actually just a few miles south) that runs along Lake Superior. This area of Minnesota is really very unique compared to the rest of the state - it's more like a coastal experience.<br /><br />

 

If you're staying in Minneapolis there are still many places worth exporing in terms of nature and landscape photography. Others will offer ideas as well, but I'd try exploring the junction of the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers in south Minneapolis. Here's a good jumping off point in terms of exploring Minnesota - <a href="http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/index.html"><u>http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/index.html</u></a>.

Thanks Del. I agree on time of day and light. I paid much more attention to that during my "Road to Yellowstone" trip (<a href="http://dbe.smugmug.com/gallery/3291037/1/184805062"><u>SmugMug</u></a>/<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=739650"><u>Photo.net</u></a>) this past June. Some vacation! I was regularly getting up before 4 AM. Ha! But there's just something that drives us, isn't there;-)<br><br>

 

My last couple of trips up north I've focused (pardon the pun) mostly on Grand Marais. It's such a cool place. But I really do want to pay more attention this time to Splitrock and Gooseberry falls. I'm definitely going to go after those narly trees at Gooseberry again, only this time with a 30D and L lenses;-)<br><br>

 

Patrick, I'll keep an eye on that water level. I think it'd be great to get out on that island for a lighthouse shot! Maybe I'll take Del's idea and rent a canoe just to get out there.<br><br>

 

I enjoyed your images Manish! Who knows, maybe we'll bump into each other. I'll be the old heavy set dude hunched over a tripod;-)<br><br>

 

Blessings all!

Taking my annual Fall North Shore trip this weekend (hopefully, there will still

be good color and the rain will let up). I plan to spend some concerted time and

effort photographing the Gooseberry Falls and Splitrock Lighthouse area, and

will also get up to Grand Marais.<br /><br />

 

Since most of my effort will go into Gooseberry and Splitrock, anybody know of

some unique vantage points for these areas? <br /><br />

 

I do already have a few snap shots from prior trips in my SmugMug gallery <a

href="http://dbe.smugmug.com/gallery/2117094/1/109690821"><u>here</u></a>.

Thanks! Gee, I don't recall, don't think so. I was on my way out of town on a Sunday morning heading toward Wapiti and then Yellowstone, and decided to stop by the tower again on the way. I think the sky went that way because I was doubled-up on grad ND filters and I just had one in a different position than the other. It's sure a neat place, and I intend to get back there again and do some more hiking for additional vantage points.

Okay ya'll. I went back and gave it another run. Here's the latest BW...<br /><br />

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6378315&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/6378315&size=lg</a><br /><br />

 

I'm likin it much better and think I have your input to thank for it.

Thank you all for your constructive feedback. Very helpful:-)

 

I chose this forum purposely rather than Digital Darkroom because I assumed this group would have the best eye for B&W. But understand the need to move the discussion. My thanks to Kevin for allowing the discussion to develop a bit here first. With respect to ratings, since its all but impossible to understand where folks are coming from when they leave a rating, that's why I wanted to ask you all, to get some *real* feedback.

 

Thanks also to those who gave me a couple of tweaked examples to look at. It's very helpful to get other perspectives. I will be doing some more reading, and more reviewing, and then take another run at it (or two or three;-) See ya in the critique forums!

I recently posted an image I converted to B&W to my gallery, and subsequently

submitted it for critique. I'm a little surprised at the ratings it's

received...<br /><br />

 

4/4 (7),&nbsp 4/5 (1),&nbsp 5/5 (3),&nbsp 6/6 (1)<br /><br />

 

The ratings in the 5 and 6 range would seem to say there are those who think

it's a good image, a good B&W conversion effort. But, there's a larger share of

those who give it an average at best evaluation. So, I'm left wondering if it's

a poor image and my technique needs work, or if it's a good image and there's

just that many folks who are inclined to dislike B&W whatever the quality of the

image.<br /><br />

 

Here's the image, and I'm wondering if some of you who really know B&W would

give me an honest assessment, and perhaps some pointers on what I need to work

on in terms of improving my B&W conversion technique...<br />

 

<u><a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6369938">http://www.photo.net/photo/6369938</a></u><br

/><br />

I generally like the result, although I'm still thinking about lightening the

top of Devils Tower with a bit with some additional dodging.<br /><br />

 

I did not use the built in Photoshop Elements "Convert to Black and White"

utility. Instead, I followed the directions outlined by Mark Galer in his "Adobe

Photoshop Elements 5.0: Maximum Performance" book for B&W conversion.

Essentially, his method uses two layers, one in which Saturation is reduced to

minus 100, the other in which Hue/Saturation (blend mode: color) is reduced in

similar fashion (to around -150). Additional layers are used to improve contrast

(blend mode: overlay, and using the transparent gradient tool) and to dodge &

burn as needed (a neutral color overlay, where a soft edge brush is used at

around 15% opacity with black to darken or white to lighten).<br /><br />

 

Thanks much for your helpful feedback!

Hi Alema. You've added some good ideas and value to the discussion.<br /><br />

 

Also, I'll take a crack at answering your question about the Plitvice Lake image. If I were using the criteria I outlined in my prior post I'd say the primary issue is one of composition. You obviously saw something beautiful at this location that you wanted to tell people about. How well an image tells that story is a pretty good description of composition. When I look at the image it is not really clear to me what the main story is: Is it the trees? Or, is it the interesting color'ed thing in the background? One of the clues I look for to determine the main story is, what's in focus. To me, the trees are not in very good focus and there is a lack of depth of field ("DOF"). It seems you may have focused instead on the lake in the background. But since the lake is not very prominent (there isn't much of it to see) it leaves the only prominent element (the trees) out of focus. So, in general the shot leaves me wondering what the real story is.<br /><br />

 

I'm certainly still in the learning process myself! And, one place that has been very helpful to me has been <a href="http://www.radiantvista.com/dailyCritique/"><u>Radiant Vista</u></a>. Visit their Daily Critique page and watch some of the videos of photo critiques. I've picked up some valuable knowledge from these folks. I also regularly pour through magazines such as Outdoor Photographer and Nature Photographer to continue my learning. And, of course, I regularly visit the Landscape gallery at photo.net to learn from others. Hope that helps. And keep taking those photographs! :-)

I like Alema's suggestions. Building on that I could see ratings like something along the following:<br /><br />

 

Composition<br />

DOF<br />

Clarity (Visual acuity, or focus)<br />

Levels (highlight/shadow balance)<br />

Color balance<br />

Creativity/Originality<br />

Impact<br /><br />

 

Obviously, we could come up with a long list. And the longer the list and less likely folks are going to answer them all. So, maybe there would be an option where folks either give the image a thumbs up or thumbs down, or they can rate it in a more detailed fashion as above. But, breaking the ratings down into specific aspects of good photography could be very helpful to those wanting to improve their craft.

Sounds like a good idea, Josh. Here's what I currently do, and feel free to correct me where you see a flaw (just in regards to photography please;-)

 

I usually start with a Canon RAW CR2 file, tweak it a bit in Adobe Camera RAW, bring it into Elements, crop as desired, and then save as a PSD. I then work the PSD image using layers to adjust levels, shadows/highlights, color balance and saturation, and apply any other filters and/or tweaks. I then resave the PSD image. Up to now it's still at the full CR2 3504x2336 resolution. I then downsize the image to 1024 (for the "Larger" size on photo.net), and apply some frugal sharpening using Unsharp Mask. Finally, I do a SaveAs to a jpg file at a #10 quality. I then undo the sharpening and the resize of the PSD, and close the file.

 

During the Save As to a jpg, in the Save As dialog I have a check box selected for "ICC Profile: sRGBIEC61966-2.1." Following that up, the JPG Options dialog is set to 10 - Maximum, Format Options: Baseline ("Standard"), and Size: 56.6Kbps. I just tried saving to another jpg from the PSD, this time deselecting the ICC profile option, and I uploaded it to a working folder I have at photo.net. I got the same result - it is noticeably darker online than when I view it on my local machine. So, I'm mystified!

 

If you have comments that will help me improve my process I'd love to hear them. Thanks!

I like what you're trying to accomplish David. The required number feels a bit high to me though. I guess I'd fall in closer to Darius on 5 to 10. And I'd make an additional suggestion - give users the option of asking for ratings or not. It occurs to me that some folks might want ratings, some might want critique, and some might want both. Would we apply the same rule for critique? If you want a critique you need to give 3-5 critiques (lower number because it takes more energy and thought). Anyway, the principle you set forth does seem to provide some additional incentive to participate.

 

As a fairly new photo.net user (since April) I can tell you why I am using photo.net. I previously obtained a smugmug photo site, which I still have, but rarely use anymore. Why? Because there was no community there that was really interacting. Photo.net by design is a simpler more straight forward site, and there's no mistaking that the design is intended to promote interaction among it's members. I came over to photo.net because I wanted people who are serious about photography to review my images, and provide feedback on them from which I can learn. The ratings are helpful feedback, and it's especially rewarding when I get some 5' or 6's from folks who have outstanding galleries themselves (I often check out the galleries of those who rate my images so I know how much stock to put in them). The critiques have the potential to be far more helpful as folks may give me honest feedback on how I can improve my shooting or processing techniques. Anyway, that's why I'm here, and I think this has been a valuable discussion on how we can improve both participation and legitimacy of ratings and critiques. Obviously, they will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean there can't be some improvement along the way.

I recalibrated my home monitor tonight with Huey, and selected the profile for

Graphic Design & Video Editing. The images on my monitor lightened considerably,

and I think that's more correct, as I've noticed my images on photo.net when

viewed on our monitors at work are significantly lighter than on my monitor at

home. Okay, closer match, that's good.

 

Well...tonight I re-worked one of my images in Photoshop Elements (to darken it

up a bit and get it closer to what I *thought* I was originally accomplishing).

I re-uploaded the image to photo.net to replace the too-light one currently

there. Reloaded the page (F5 to refresh) and noted the new look. "Hey! That's

too dark! What gives?" I rechecked my new image in Elements - it was what I

wanted, but the image I just uploaded to photo.net was noticeably darker.

Somewhere between Elements and uploading, that thing changed. So, I gotta ask,

is there some image tweaking that photo.net does during the upload process? My

guess is no. Anyone have an idea on what else might explain the curious change?

Thanks.

Okay, I'll get over it and move on. But, I think I did perhaps offer a rational alternative;-) Let's get back to what we do.

I use a weblog service called TypePad. To protect bloggers from comment spam, a blog owner can require users to either supply a valid email address or be registered through TypeKey (see <a href="http://www.typekey.com"><u>www.typekey.com</u></a>). Creating a TypeKey account allows the commenter to still remain anonymous while also being accountable. I would think something like that might provide an additional layer of protection.

 

Also, why not allow members some choices here in terms of global settings on ratings; anonymous, members-only, etc.?

In my opinion there is little to be gained by anonymous ratings. It allows folks

who are of a malicious nature to interfere with the true purpose of this site -

a community of photographers who want to improve their craft by interacting with

each other in mutually beneficial ways, and that includes both ratings and

critiques.

 

Those who rate photos as 3/3 on this site most often lack the courage and

integrity to be accountable or are photographically ignorant. I say "most often"

because there are times when an image deserves a 3/3 rating. But even then, most

photographers who have an ounce of integrity would not give such a rating

without also accompanying it with constructive feedback that is meant to help

the inexperienced grow and develop new skills.

 

Please consider removing the anonymity from the ratings system. The opinion of a

man or woman who is unwilling to put his or her signature to it should be

suspect from the outset, and deserves little or no value toward serving the

purposes of this community.

To follow up on the discussion since my original post of June 4, I have been wavering between using Hyperfocal distance or Infinity focusing for landscapes, and it wasn't until I got out with the camera and lens this last weekend and shot at all major focal lengths over a spectrum of f/stops with both focusing techniques that I finally identified which technique works best for my Tamron 17-50mm lens. Turns out it depends on the focal length I'm using at the time. Anyway, up to now I've had to shoot tons of images using both techniques to make sure I got a good one. And, given the data I obtained this weekend, it turns out that also was hit and miss at best.

 

For example, over the course of my recent trip to Yellowstone I would typically get setup for a shot, set my lens to manual AF and focus at infinity, and then take several exposures (-1.5, -1, 0, +1, +1.5) at each f/stop (22, 20, 16, and 13). Then, I would focus 1/3 or midway into the field of view, and do the same thing again. Finally, I also shot several exposures using Canon's A-DEP feature.

 

Somewhere over the course of all those images I usually got an acceptable one. But again, it turns out it was hit and miss at best, used up memory cards like nobody's business, and produced a ton of post-processing work in assessing images. Now, having finally completed the research I can report the following for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens:

 

@17mm - Infinity focus is best - Acceptable range is f/5.6 - 13. Best at f/8

 

@24mm - Hyperfocal and/or Mid-focus is best - Acceptable range is f/8 - 16. Best at f/13 * Infinity focus is also acceptable, but not as sharp, f/8-16. Best at f/13.

 

@35mm - Hyperfocal and/or Mid-focus is best - Acceptable range is f/13 - 20. Best at f/16. * Infinity focus is also acceptable, but not as sharp, f/16 - 22. Best at f/20.

 

@50mm - Hyperfocal and/or Mid-focus is best - Acceptable range is f/13 - 20. Best at f/16. (but it's obvious you're not going to get crisp foregrounds here)

 

So, as you can see, when I shot landscapes at 17mm and used a range of f/13 to f/22, I was only *approaching* good DOF when I got to the last f/stop (f/13), and I missed the best f/stop of f/8 altogether. Fortunately, sometimes the A-DEP function would select a stop closer to f/8. However, the problem with the A-DEP function, as I see it, is that you can never know quite where the actual focus point is. So again, it's hit and miss. Obviously, this data only applies to the Tamron 17-50mm f/28 lens. At some point I will repeat the same experiment with my Canon 70-200 f/4L lens. My assumption seems to have had some basis, that each lens has its own set of "sweet spots" in terms of focal lengths and f/stops that provide the best DOF, and it turns out this is also dependent on the method of focusing used.

I agree with Jammey's approach - purposeful practice. I have been wavering between using Hyperfocal distance or Infinity focusing for landscapes (admittedly a little off subject), and it wasn't until I got out with the camera and lens this last weekend and shot at all major focal lengths over a spectrum of f/stops with both focusing techniques that I finally identified which technique works best for my Tamron 17-50mm lens. Turns out it depends on what focal length I'm using at the time. Anyway, up to now I've had to shoot tons of images using both techniques to make sure I got a good one. Now, I can zero in on the best focusing technique to use at a given focal length and save my memory card and energy for additional shots. A similar testing approach could be applied to identifying specific DOF at a given f/stop. It's a pain in the butt to be sure, but once done you KNOW.

FYI - just back from Yellowstone and The West (Badlands, Devil's Tower). Never needed the shower caps I purchased at Walmart for the rain. The weather was picture perfect except for my first morning in Yellowstone when I shot the lower falls in Yellowstone Canyon. Got most of my shots before catching a few drops on the lens. By the time I was at my next shoot the rain had finished. Still, the shower caps were in my bag and available if I needed them.

On my trip now I realize I do want to have a laptop for such events. I do have the Creative Vision W, but I don't like the fact that I have to assume it's copied both jpgs and CR2's (it doesn't show the CRS files - but the total amount of files copied matches both jpg and CR2). Also, Internet bars are unpredictable. So, another form of backup where I know my images are double-backed up would provide an extra measure of peace of mind. I'm realizing peace of mind is worth a lot;-)

Thanks for the helpful feedback y'all!<br /><br />

 

Wayne, I did get a Hoya Warming Polarizer for my Canon 70-200mm f/4L. I also have a Cokin kit with a couple of GND filters (1&2), and an 81c warming filter. I am covered with both a 67mm and 58mm adapter for the Cokin set, since two of my primary lenses are 67mm (the Tamron 17-50 and Canon 70-200) and the other is a 58mm (Canon 100mm macro).<br /><br />

I got some feedback in the Nature forum on weather protection, and bought a package of cheep clear shower caps for the camera, plus I have a rain jacket for me;-)<br /><br />

I have been pouring through Joseph Lange's "Photographer's Guide to Yellowstone," and have notes on all the major sites in Yellowstone and what time of the day is best to catch them. I'm going to use this as a sort of menu to select from as I make my way through the park, knowing I'll need to remain flexible because of weather, crowds, beasts, etc.<br /><br />

On a side note, my co-workers have been excited for me also. One of them has been checking in on the Old Faithful web cam every morning (<a href="http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/oldfaithfulcam.htm"><u>http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/oldfaithfulcam.htm</u></a>). Said they will be looking for me there and expect me to turn and wave to the camera ;;-)<br /><br />

I did revise my itinerary to get to Yellowstone one day sooner, so I will have four full days of shooting there now. Well, back to packing. Thanks again everyone - lots of helpful advice and info :D

OOH! You guys are a merciless crowd! ;-)

 

Well, I'm one of those 50 year old's who's wondering if I could make the change over 15 years or so. In fact, I'm heading out in a few days on my own personal "workshop" - a vacation that includes the Badlands, Devil's Tower (- | - \ ) and Yellowstone National Park.

 

After buying my first pro DSLR camera and lenses at the beginning of the year, I'm just enjoying the passion. I have a full-time job as a software tester. And I'm single. So, photography is good place to invest some energy in my free time. For the most part it's fun. But I can already relate to one comment a couple of you made about workflow. The more images I take, the more time I spend at the computer at home working them in Photoshop (after spending all day at a computer at work).

 

Anyway, thanks for starting the discussion Justin. It's really helpful to hear y'all talk the facts of life. Sometimes reality bites;-) Well, I can decide on the "pro" thing later. Right now I'm gonna take a road trip and see the country side.

Y'all do know how to mess with a guys brain! I just finished all four of Merklinger's articles. Ouch! Hey, I'm a guy that broke into a cold sweat when I had to do word problems in grade school. But, here's what I'm taking away from the read (from the second to the last paragraph in the last article - I coulda saved myself some pain):<br /><br />

 

"The most effective way to maximize the depth of field is often to stop the lens down to the size of the smallest detail to be recorded in the image. Then focus at infinity and shoot."<br /><br />

 

"If it is not reasonable (by virtue of the fine detail desired) to stop down that far, focus half-way through the field and stop down as far as you can."<br /><br />

 

Okay, now I do have a little confession to make. I have done some infinity focusing research of my own. Not that I understand Harold's math (I really got lost when he started talking about the thumb method;-) Rather, some time back I went out with my 30D and Tamron 17-50mm and did some shooting with the infinity focusing method across a number of f/stops. You can see my write-up of this little experiment in <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=d8aee97ee0ac7eaaa99bad5ba4c54907&showtopic=15539&hl=hyperfocal&st=20#"><u>this post</u></a> over at Luminous Landscape. It was clear to me then that infinity focus was the way to go for most of the field of view. I just wasn't seeing what I really wanted when I really wanted objects very close to be very sharp. So, I've been leery about fully adopting the theory. But, after reading Harold's articles I intend to give his second method a good try as well. Thanks all. It's been a good and valuable discussion.

I like the shower cap idea. But I just have to ask the obvious...how does the camera wear it? :D

 

I assume the opening with the elastic fits out on the front of the lens somewhere, with the rest of the camera body safely inside the shower cap. And you are working the controls of the camera with your fingers *through* the cap.

 

Sorry, it's getting late, but that's the only way it makes sense to me ;-)

Cool. Those "frog togs" are like something you pick up at a hunting store (Gander Mtn)? I have no idea what they are used for. I assume if I tell a sales person I need some "frog togs" they will know what I'm talking about;-)

I'm heading out for a 10-day photo trip soon and will be outside in various

parts of the country where I may encounter rain. I don't want to go to the

expense of buying a special rain protector for my camera (gotta save some money

for the trip;-) I was thinking maybe I'd just go find a cheep clear poncho and

cut that down to size for protecting the camera during shooting in the rain.

Anybody got any other ideas, things that have worked well for you? Thanks.