Shenendoah National Park July 2005

[GregWarren]

These are just couple of shots I took this weekend on a camping trip up there.
Any comments are welcome. also criticism.

Greg

[Ol'coot]

Greg,
Very beautiful shots, #3 is outstanding IMHO, I love the composition

[Swampy]

Very nice. Reminds me of the forest area surrounding Mt. Ranier in Seattle.

First three look great. Fourth one looks like it's been processed a bit too much for some reason. The coat on the deer is what's bugging me. The tree cover right above really adds to the shot though.

I'll agree about #3 too. Top notch.

[sandman]

Nice Gregg , i read Bill Brysons ''a walk in the woods'' and this park was on the trail , it's nice to pin a photo to it .Thanks .
only criticism is the blown out water in the falls , very difficult to get the right combo of shutter speed and aperture in those condititions , maybe a ND filter?

Brian

[GregWarren]

Thanks guys,
Yes overprocessed to say the least on number 4 it had to be sharpend to bits. I missed the focus ( again ) this was actually backed down a bit. Swampy did you blow that up to see the problem or do you notice it in the onscreen web version. What stopped me dead was a fawn in the darkend forest standing in a spot of sunlight. I thought " there is a shot that will get printed". Well the Harley Davidson scared the fawn ( Those guys really love to drive on the skyline) and I lost that one. Then I noticed the doe and another fawn back in the woods. Deer there are quite tame so I approached slowly and got the mother shot. The fawn would not cooperate. Let me send you this silly one to show you.

I had no cable release and since it took an hour and a half to hike to the spot where the falls were, I did not want to go back to get it. ( thats down and back time ). I was using a 2 sec shutter speed and had it down to like f 22. How would I meter in order to get the right exposure for the water? I will go back and check the file I think nothing is blown on the histogram so maybe I can save it.

I also agree #3 is really special. I have a few versions of it but this jpg stood out. I shot these also in raw but I dont know how to save a jpg out of the raw file converter in photoshop. I tried to save as a tiff then resave as a jpg but I couldnt get it too work.

Regarding Mt Ranier. Thats really interesting since I am considering moving to tacoma this fall. Another reason to do so! Lol

Greg

[GregWarren]

This is the black and white version jpg out of the camera no editing at all other than resizing for the web. I really like the shot but I think the black and white looks a little cluttered. Any comments on ideal camera and digital settings for " ansel adams photography". Also I am bit with the sharpness bug. If its not sharp I feel either my equipment or I am failing. I already know the artsy argument about softness, but I just have to know my equipment can make it really sharp if it needs to. It just kills me when its not sharp.

BTW most of these water shots were shot with a sigma 15-30. I got that lens with my S1 when I bought it used. I didnt use it for two years now but I really like having the wider lens. These shots are the first time I actually decided to take it out on a hike. My nikkor 20 mm 2.8 is broken the aperature ring does not work. O and the deer shots are the nikon 2.8 80-200.

I took bug shots but none are really in focus. ( I wanted that red mad smiley here but I dont know how to do it)

Greg

[GregWarren]

This is another version of the Rose River Falls. It was underexposed by at leastt one stop. The water looks good but the photo is too dark for my taste.None of the jpegs or raw have blown highlights. How do I bring out the water more without losing the rest of the shot to utter darkness?

[Swampy]

I didn't blow it up at all, just looking straight at it. My monitor perhaps? Now that you say the situation, I can see what happened, but it still looks odd to me with that hot spot there.

That water fall you want to try to save? Have you tried the Shadows/Highlights feature (If you have Photoshop CS/CS2)? If you don't have CS/CS2, you can try messing with curves. Also in CS2, under Image>Adjustments, there's a new one called Exposure. Try the Gamma setting and see what it does as well.

Here's a few shots from last year from when I was up at Rainier.
http://fmount.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7758

[GregWarren]

Thanks for the tip Ill check out the highlights feature. I am using CS2
Greg

[sandman]

Greg hope you don't mind i had a quick play , using just C.S , only difference is that CS2 has the exposure slider .
shadows highlights filter
shadows
amount +32%
width +38%
radius +275 px
highlights
amount +35%
width +59%
radius +84 px

i then used the mid tone @ +26
colour correction @ +65


finished off with a tweak on general contrast +6 , brightness +7 , saturation +9
it still looked a little flat sso i used the saturation on 2 individual colours
green channel +10
red channel +9

These would be my personall choices , they might not be yours .
the greens and reds are the two most predominate colours , so i thought i'd enhance those to bring them out a bit .

Brian

[GregWarren]

Which one did you tweak the underexposed one just above or the one at the top of the thread. It looks so out of focus but that would be me .. not your tweaking. And no I dont mind at all feel free to do anything you want to my posted photos. I especially thank you for posting exactly what you did. That was nice. It looks better. I agree with the green expecially.

Greg

[HulaMike]

Greg, the B&W is thrilling. The conversion added a lot of oomph to the lighting.

[sandman]

I played with the underexposed 2nd shot

[GregWarren]

Mike that is not a conversion of a color it is a a BW shot directly from the S2. I was inspired by the great one himself. I always am inspired by Mr. Adams. I wish I could get nature shots even a little like his. I sometimes wish I could get even one picture really in focus. " nothing worse than a fuzzy picture of a sharp idea".

Do you guys know what is the best length to use for scenes. I have heard 50mm.

Greg

[HulaMike]

all the better Greg. I have always thought that you see differently when shooting B&W, you're looking for contrast and composition more than when shooting color which has an entirely different set of parameters relating to the psychology of color.

A sharp primary lens is the ticket for scenics.

[GregWarren]

Do you have an idea which one is really recommended. Ie.. 20mm 50mm 80mm

Just checking. Also do you know where I could see comparisons of these for scenes.

greg

[S_Leeper]

I always thought A Adams said "Nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy idea."

As far as which lens to use for scenics... depends on composition & compression you want.

[GregWarren]

Hello Sam,

My comment on Ansel was actually sarcastic, I quoted the opposite because of some sharpness problems I have been having. In fact I think its Mike I was answering and he has got that quote on every post. I can really be sort of silly in my humor. :lol:

Regarding the lens I would love a general use one first but I think landscapes would be my first interest here. Landscapes then portraits. What does compression mean?

Greg

[S_Leeper]

For most dslr's the general concensus for a general use landscape lens is 20mm or wider--often the 12-24mm zooms are favored... I do have a sigma 20-40 zoom that does very well, but prefer to use my manual focus (& non-chipped) 28mm ais nikkor for landscapes.

Compression... I'm not really the best to describe, but will try...
20mm--very wide angle--no compression: Person on plain 30 feet in front of camera, with hills in background. Person is very small in wide expansive view of scene.
50mm--normal--minimal compression: Person is still fairly small, but background scene is not quite as expansive & seems a bit closer to the person than the 20mm photo.
105mm--zoom--moderate compression: Person is now fairly dominate & background hills, of which only a small portion are now in photo, seem somewhat closer to person--albeit more likely to be more blurred due to dof factors.