Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsharkk04
Voyeur, very nice set, as usual!
I'm going to agree with BSA, that black and white photo of Warebeth beach is the highlight of the set. Interesting crosshatched rocks in the foreground, the cloud movement from the long exposure, the light hitting those rocks, the contrast, damn A+ That should be on 1x. I'd like to see some more b&w from you.
Thanks
The Warebeth Beach shot is also one of my favourites - I probably don't consider B&W as often as I should do, but I knew this one was going to be B&W when I was shooting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsharkk04
I also really liked the sea stacks, very nice composition. Although I'm going to need some convincing that less of the focus should be on the dry rocks at the bottom of the frame and moreso on the water hitting the rocks in the mid ground.
I have other compositions from nearer the water (see the below pano, for example), but the rocks in/near the waterline were basically all black and I liked the fact that the rocks further up the beach had warmer tones that complimented the warm tones in the cliff. I know what you mean about this composition though, as it does somewhat minimise/diminish the sea stacks themselves as a focal point of the image - although I found that was also true of any non-telephoto composition, and my telephoto compositions were all a little flat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsharkk04
Rings of Brodgar: I really like how the wooden poles lead your eye right into the sunset, but the thing that confuses me is that the sun is basically unobstructed in this photo shining beneath the cloud layer, but it doesn't seem to light the scene at all in this shot... These are normally the type of sunsets that turn out awesome, with the sun lighting all the clouds and the foreground, did that not happen??
They're standing stones, rather than wooden poles - neolithic, so around 4000-5000 years old (there's actually a very well preserved neolithic village on the island of around the same age, called
Scara Brae). Unfortunately the cloud's didn't really light up in the way you're suggesting - the best we managed to get was a little bit of orange colour on the horizon. Not sure why, as like you we thought the conditions were perfect for it, but possibly because the sun was setting behind a line of hills? I did get a couple of nice long exposures (5+ minutes) after the sun set, of which this is my favourite:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsharkk04
John O groats: I like the composition but the colors of the houses seem a bit oversaturated for my tastes. Also on a super nitty sidepoint, is the horizon slightly off?
Yeah, it turns out the horizon was a little off - now corrected
On the other hand, I like the saturation of the houses - or more accurately, the contrast between the brightly coloured houses and the rest of the basically monochromatic scene. I did boost the exposure on the houses a little, but probably less than you think - and I didn't touch the saturation/vibrance, they're actually just painted very brightly. Incidentally, if you ever visit John o' Groats I highly recommend staying in those houses, or in the lodges that are
part of the same outfit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsharkk04
Also, anyone here use the canon 16-35mm f/2.8L? I'm thinking of upgrading from the 17-40, not sure if its worth it. Considering I would use it for a fair amount of street shots where the extra stop would come in handy, it probably is, but I can't make up my mind.
I have the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and I love it, but I'm not sure if it would be worth upgrading from the 17-40. When I was purchasing I looked at both, and ultimately only went for the 16-35 because I had (still have) aspirations to shoot some night stuff like the milky way, star trails etc and thought the faster lens would be helpful there - potentially letting me stop down a bit for extra sharpness if necessary, but still being at f/4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja666
Hey, what do you mean by focal point? I get it from some other meaning, because it should be everyhting in focus, so i bet that you talk about some composition concept that I am not aware of
I think by 'focal point' he means a compositional element to which the eye is naturally drawn, or which is clearly the dominant/most important element in the composition.
Usually the decision to shoot a stitched panorama is made because you want to get a wider view of the scene, and fit more 'stuff' into the frame - the problem with this is that if you don't pay attention to the composition the viewer's eye doesn't know where to go in the photograph, because there's too much going on; it's also harder (or, at least, I find it harder) to use traditional compositional elements such as leading lines, or emphasising foreground objects, in stitched panoramas, because often the stitching distorts them and/or composing in a manner which includes them results in parallax issues.
It's therefore often helpful to have a very clear subject for your panorama, with the rest of the composition essentially showing the 'setting' in which your subject is found rather than being a point of interest to which the eye is drawn - although there are obviously exceptions where a 'busy' panoramic scene works well because everywhere the eye travels within the image there is interesting detail for it to latch onto, although even these will often have particular focal points such as familiar landmarks (think, for example, of cityscapes - particularly those shot from a tall building or similar vantage point).