Sunrise in the fields

annnna8888 · May 3, 2007

I'm not a morning person. Not at all. But the photographer in me knows that for great landscape photos you need great light, and that only comes early in the morning and late in the afternoon. So once in a while I kick myself out of bed well before dawn and go shoot some pictures.

The sunrise in early April was at about 6.30 a.m. and I made sure I didn't miss it. I was on the chosen location early enough to capture some mists that hung low above the ground before the sun rays dissipated them. I visited a few different spots and actually saw the sun come up twice. :wink

Anyway, enjoy!

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. An example of a cool "glory" effect:

If you're interested, there are more photos from this particular sunrise session.

Comments welcome!

Ana

hawkeye978 · May 3, 2007

Nice sequence. I particularly like number 5 and the closeup shots of the grass with the dew.

annnna8888 · May 4, 2007

hawkeye978 wrote:

Nice sequence. I particularly like number 5 and the closeup shots of the grass with the dew.

Thanks, Tom! I have to go back one day soon and take some more photos of the dew. It was really magical.

Ana

LilleG · May 4, 2007

I really like #6.

gus · May 4, 2007

I really like #8. We dont get fog here so i never get to photograph in it.

tobers · May 4, 2007

#4 for me - lovely shot. It's really worth it getting up early isn't it. How's about getting up into those hills next time?

annnna8888 · May 4, 2007

Thanks, LilleG, gus and tobers!
Yup, getting up early sure is worth it - if only I could do it more often.

Those hills look fine from here, but if you go there, you're in the middle of woods with no views.

Ana

saurora · May 4, 2007

Nice Ana! #5 is the one shot that is the most magical for me. Love the rolling hills and the whole setting. I like your use of the fisheye in #7 and #10 is just sweet in it's simplicity. Worth getting out of bed for!

annnna8888 · May 5, 2007

saurora wrote:

Nice Ana! #5 is the one shot that is the most magical for me. Love the rolling hills and the whole setting. I like your use of the fisheye in #7 and #10 is just sweet in it's simplicity. Worth getting out of bed for!

Thanks, saurora! I'm planning on getting out of bed early more often - sights like these are motivation enough!

Ana

Nikolai · May 5, 2007

Annnna,
Great series!

#7 plain rocks! It may need a pop or two, but the composition and the use of FE/WA is great!

#10 would rock, too, but I have two complaints: it seems oversharpened, and I don't like the bokeh (maybe it's the result of oversharpening).
Both could be cured in PP, I think, unless it's a straight-from-the-camera jpeg...

annnna8888 · May 5, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

Great series!

#7 plain rocks! It may need a pop or two, but the composition and the use of FE/WA is great!

#10 would rock, too, but I have two complaints: it seems oversharpened, and I don't like the bokeh (maybe it's the result of oversharpening).
Both could be cured in PP, I think, unless it's a straight-from-the-camera jpeg...

Hey Nik, thanks for the detailed comment!
I just got a new computer and the LCD is not calibrated yet, so the colors and/or pop might indeed be off. Do you find these photos flat and lacking in contrast and color?

As for the bokeh - I agree, it's ugly, but that's the lens (Tamron 18-200).

Dew drops don't seem to agree with it. Maybe the blades in focus are over-sharpened - I'll give the photo another go in Photoshop.
And I never ever post a photo that hasn't been post-processed.

Thanks again!

Ana

Nikolai · May 5, 2007

Ana,

annnna8888 wrote:

Hey Nik, thanks for the detailed comment!
I just got a new computer and the monitor is not calibrated yet, so the colors and/or pop might indeed be off. Do you find these photos flat and lacking in contrast and color?

Not by much, but I have a gut feeling it could be better. I can play with it in PS and post here to show what I think, if you grant me a permission to do that.

annnna8888 wrote:

As for the bokeh - I agree, it's ugly, but that's the lens (Tamron 18-200). Dew drops don't seem to agree with it. Maybe the blades in focus are over-sharpened - I'll give the photo another go in Photoshop.

Ah, tamron... I see... Had very similar issue with my copy of tammy 70-300... for a month, then I sold it. Yeah, the glass makes all sorts of difference, both good and bad...

annnna8888 wrote:

And I never ever post a photo that hasn't been post-processed.
Thanks again!
Ana

Good to know!

Same here!

Cheers!

annnna8888 · May 6, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

Not by much, but I have a gut feeling it could be better. I can play with it in PS and post here to show what I think, if you grant me a permission to do that.

Sure, I'd love to, go ahead. And I'll try and calibrate the LCD as soon as possible. I wouldn't want to post-process a bunch of photos only to realize later they're all off.

Nikolai wrote:

Ah, tamron... I see... Had very similar issue with my copy of tammy 70-300... for a month, then I sold it. Yeah, the glass makes all sorts of difference, both good and bad...

In almost all respects, this Tamron rocks. It can't be beaten as an all-round, travel and hiking lens. It's just that bokeh is not its strong suit.

Ana

Nikolai · May 6, 2007

How about this?

annnna8888 wrote:

Sure, I'd love to, go ahead. And I'll try and calibrate the LCD as soon as possible. I wouldn't want to post-process a bunch of photos only to realize later they're all off.
Ana

Layer copy, multiply with mask over field to darken the sky (the satr became visible I didn't notice originally), curves with the inverted mask (thus protecting the sky) to pop the field, Hiraloam sharpening (am 35, radious 70, threshold 5), merge all the above, finally change opacity 66% (I like Dan's approach of overdoing "it" and then addressing the final balance with the opacity).

annnna8888 · May 6, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

Layer copy, multiply with mask over field to darken the sky (the satr became visible I didn't notice originally), curves with the inverted mask (thus protecting the sky) to pop the field, Hiraloam sharpening (am 35, radious 70, threshold 5), merge all the above, finally change opacity 66% (I like Dan's approach of overdoing "it" and then addressing the final balance with the opacity).

Nice, thanks! I like how you made the photo pop more. However, the red glow on the furrows and the hayrack is gone and your version what the scene looked like half hour later when it wasn't immediately after the first sunrays peered from behind the horizon and the light was already whitish.

IMHO something between your version and mine would be ideal.

You definitely put more work into it. I didn't use layers or masks for this specific photo, but I can see that I probably should have. In any case, I was striving for subtlety as there isn't much contrast and pop in the early morning light, but I really appreciate your feedback since what I'm seeing on my uncalibrated LCD isn't really accurate and flat is definitely different from subtle. Thanks again!

Nikolai · May 6, 2007

Ana,

annnna8888 wrote:

... IMHO something between your version and mine would be ideal.

Yeah, I agree. It would simply take more time and more attention.
BTW, that huey thingie works just fine, even if the installer sucks...

annnna8888 · May 6, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

BTW, that huey thingie works just fine, even those the installer sucks...

Ahem, what huey thingie? You mean in the display settings where you can change the colors and gamma and stuff? Or are you talking about photoshop?

You'll have to forgive me, I've been working the whole Sunday instead of relaxing, so my head may not be functioning properly anymore.

Ana

Nikolai · May 6, 2007

Pantone Huey

annnna8888 wrote:

Ahem, what huey thingie?

My own huey thingie: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=60611
Everybody's huey thingie: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=27202&highlight=huey

annnna8888 · May 7, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

My own huey thingie: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=60611
Everybody's huey thingie: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=27202&highlight=huey

Ahaaaaaaaaa, that huey thingie!

rofl
I'll check it out.

Thanks!:curtsey

Art Scott · May 7, 2007

I must say 4 &5 are my favs

bow

...............but i really like them all

thumb

....1 small non photo question........what are the poles with the small roofs??

at first i thought they were pole barns, but the closer photos busted that myth of mine.....

annnna8888 · May 7, 2007

Art Scott wrote:

I must say 4 &5 are my favsbowbow...............but i really like them allthumbthumb....1 small non photo question........what are the poles with the small roofs??
at first i thought they were pole barns, but the closer photos busted that myth of mine.....

Thanks, Art!

We call those things hayracks and they are used to dry hay, sometimes even grain. The one above is empty - not hay season yet - but this is what it looks like with hay on it:

Hayracks in this form are typical for and originate in Slovenia. They can only be found here, but they have been copied in some parts of Austria and Tirol. They sure are quite photogenic, IMHO, and fit neatly into rural scenery.

Hope this explains a bit.

Ana

Art Scott · May 7, 2007

WOW the amount of work it must take to get that hay on the rack.....here we roll it into giant rolls or bale it into tight rectangles of hay (hay bales) ....some of our round bales are like those I saw in the Czech Republic, but without the plastic wrap.

Thanks for the quick reply

....they definitly are photogenic as I see them here.

thumb

annnna8888 · May 7, 2007

Art Scott wrote:

WOW the amount of work it must take to get that hay on the rack.....here we roll it into giant rolls or bale it into tight rectangles of hay (hay bales) ....some of our round bales are like those I saw in the Czech Republic, but without the plastic wrap.

Thanks for the quick reply....they definitly are photogenic as I see them here.thumb

You mean hay bales like these?

The thing is hay doesn't dry the same way in bales and on a hayrack. It may be more work to get the hay up on hayracks, but the quality of hay is higher, as far as I know.

As for the godawful plastic ones - yeah, we have them here too: :puke1

Ana

Art Scott · May 7, 2007

yeah like those ones.....see americans really do not care about the quality of the food we feed the animals or actually our selves.....our hay is dries on the ground and sometimes is already begining to decay by the time it is fed...and of course all of our human food (veggies and meat and fruit) is just horrifically full of chemicals of all sorts (fertilizers and steroids).....I do believe we rank the highest in genetically engineer food stuffs and even though it is illegal for our atheletes to use steroids we feed it ti all of our animals and even us in all of our food. Have a wonderful week and can't wait to see more of Slovenia and its countryside

bow it is 6:00 am Central Daylight time here...gotta go to sleep.......Good night....errrr morning

Mikko · May 7, 2007

Ana,

These are all very, very good. I especially like number 5. I also took a look at your web site and you have many great images. If you havent yet you should post some of those also.

MIK