Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (OM) Album for a potential business client

Subject: Re: [OM] (OM) Album for a potential business client
From: bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 23:21:01 +1200
 

 Reply
I'll probably bore you all to tears as the topic has been
covered a couple of days ago. I'm going to start with my reply and below
are the comments that I'm replying to. 

AND, I don't have the tools to
selectively treat the sky in a shot. 

Probably i should get a graduated
neutral density filter. I know some landscape photographers use them


Re: http://www.brianswale.com/zuikoholics/PGG/index.htm


http://www.brianswale.com/zuikoholics/PGG/2.htm
These were taken with
the 200mm manual zuiko on the E-1 on a tripod 3 shots.
The high hills in
the background are at least 16 miles away - I scaled the distance from a
map just now.
These shots actually have more detail in than the
originals have, since I slid in some more contrast for the web
images.
Basically, the E-1 recorded what was there ...


http://www.brianswale.com/zuikoholics/PGG/7.htm 2 shots.
Golden
sunset, sheep streaming into the distance. These two shots came out
exactly as I expected, and show the wonderful luminous light at that
short period of time on that hazy late afternoon. I really like the
back-lit 
outlining of the sheep. That's what made me come to a
screeching halt as I was driving, and take the photos. 

I remember when
Moose gave me a hard time over this shot, his point being that there was
no detail in the
sky.
http://www.brianswale.com/zuikoholics/PA160549-D-2-1000
The two
major points in this photo are the wonderful bronzy colour of the new
poplar leaves at the back, and elsewhere the composition with the
straight lines and repeating patterns. In my mind the sky has no
function other than to help balance the composition.
The less detail in
the sky the better so that the sky does not draw attention AWAY from the
two main features. 

I recall that the edited photo which Moose offered
might have improved the sky features - but in the process the colour
rendition of the rest of the photo was munted ... 

I have yet to see a
photo where the use of a RAW editor has made a material difference to a
shot that I couldn't do otherwise. 

5567 & 5569 there was no detail
there in the first place; that's how it was. 

8075627 as above


9065685 this was a clear sky. Nothing to be seen there ... 

_9133407
totally as it was, except that I had to increase gamma in FS as the
photo as a whole was too dark. I may have compensated for this by
reducing highlights and increasing contrast. 

_9133404 as above


A055835 that's exactly how it was. In any case people will be looking
at the young cattle and not the sky ... 

5569 & 5567 there was no
detail there is the first place; that's how it was. 
Blank
about-to-snow-looking grey sky 

P6084876 and P6084877 The sun was <only
just> out of the viewfinder, to the left, and I took these extremely
backlit shots <because> of the wonderful backlit effect. It was a very
bright hazy late afternoon shot. No detail at 
all to be seen in that
sky. 

_9065686 The image shows exactly how it was. 

_9065698 The image
shows exactly how it was, except that I had to increase gamma in FS as
the photo as a whole was too dark. I may have compensated for 
this by
reducing highlights and increasing contrast. 

6040 as above ...


/////////////////////////////////
Chuck commented that these shots had
deficient sky 

7015567
8075627
9065685
9133407 (but compare it with
9133404 which is noticeably better
highlightwise)
A055835
A093592/A093593/A093593 where it isn't so much
blown highlights, as plain overexposed!
PA073059
5569
But not P6084876
where the treatment is clearly ntentional and
appropriate.
5686
5698
6040 

I think Piers made these comments. 

5567
- The sky is blown at the top of the image but is largely recoverable
even as a JPEG. There's more cloud detail there than what shows on this
image. 

5569 - The sky is completely blown and is colorless and
featureless. If the image is important I'd recrop it to exclude the sky.


5627 - Not really blown but overly bright. Cutting the highlights back
reveals a bit more color and detail in the sky and clouds 

5685 - As
above 

5686 - What 5685 should have been. Use this one instead. Why are
both here? 

5698 - Not blown anywhere but I just happened to notice
that I think it's slightly underexposed and the snow is blue. 

3592 -
Mountains and sky overexposed and too blue. This one might be hard to
fix without applying separate corrections in layers. 

3594 and 6040
have more of the same. 

3849 - Draw the highlights down in the sky...
still recoverable as a JPEG 

The End. Sorry it's so long. 

 
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz