Season Openner

coldclimb

So we headed out today for the first climbs of the season, on junky rock and in lousy weather, and this is the second-best shot I got. The best was on HIS camera, so I still have to get that from him. Anyway, this file is completely unedited, except the resizing, so what would YOU do to make it better? I kinda want to get a feel for what others do so I can think about that when playing with it myself. Thanks all!

Angelo

hey coldclimb: this is a cool shot. Looks like it could use some adjustments but I don't know much about post... the only think that catches my eye as a distraction is the pair of white shoes beneath you. Maybe they can be cloned out of the picture?

cletus

Lovely conditions for a climb

It's a neat shot. I just wish it was a little bit sharper. I'm trying to figure out if the softness is focus, motion blur or a combination of the two. Do you have the exposure information for the shot? As Angelo said, the white shoes are a bit distracting. Should be easy to either remove or at least tone down.

By the way, after walking around in that mud are those shoes still white???

coldclimb

cletus wrote:

Lovely conditions for a climb

It's a neat shot. I just wish it was a little bit sharper. I'm trying to figure out if the softness is focus, motion blur or a combination of the two. Do you have the exposure information for the shot? As Angelo said, the white shoes are a bit distracting. Should be easy to either remove or at least tone down.

By the way, after walking around in that mud are those shoes still white???

Hehe, the shoes were muddy, but mud washes off.

Here's some info:
Shutter Speed: 1/49 sec.
Aperture: F/3.7
Focal Length: 15mm
ISO 400

The shoes would be simple to clone out, and that is one thing I would do. The softness was mostly from being in a hole and out of the sunlight, and hanging on a rope with the camera held out away from the rock to get a better angle. Most of my other ones are much worse for blur.

Steve Cavigliano

Coldclimb,

I'm with Cletus on this one. I think either the camera focused on his shoe, or you used too slow of a speed and he moved. His face and hands aren't very sharp Still, I like it I'd crop tighter on the left (clone the white tennies out) and crop a bit off the bottom. I'd also take down the brightness of the face and hands. Matter of fact, this shot may even look better in B&W

What program do you use for post processing? I'm sure some of the PS/PSP gurus will take a shot at your pic and give you step by step explanation of what they did. If they don't see it here, post a link to this thread in the Photoshop Shenanigans Forum :-)

Anyhow, lots of good things about this shot. The look on his face, the perspective, the rope angling in from the right, etc If you can reduce the softness, tweak curves or levels, and reduce the brightness of his hands and face, this shot will be even better

Thanks for sharing,
Steve

Steve Cavigliano

coldclimb wrote:

Hehe, the shoes were muddy, but mud washes off.

Here's some info:
Shutter Speed: 1/49 sec.
Aperture: F/3.7
Focal Length: 15mm
ISO 400

The shoes would be simple to clone out, and that is one thing I would do. The softness was mostly from being in a hole and out of the sunlight, and hanging on a rope with the camera held out away from the rock to get a better angle. Most of my other ones are much worse for blur.

I'm gonna disagree with you here. I think the softness is due to the slow speed and the wide aperture (1/49 sec ?????) The slow speed allowed motion blur and the wide aperture gave you a smaller DOF. Looks like you were very close to your subject (must have been if you were using a 15mm focal length).

For next time, I'd advise cranking up the ISO, so you have at least a 1/100 speed, and see if you can close down the aperture a bit to get a deeper DOF.


Steve

Stan

cletus wrote:

Lovely conditions for a climb

It's a neat shot. I just wish it was a little bit sharper. I'm trying to figure out if the softness is focus, motion blur or a combination of the two. Do you have the exposure information for the shot? As Angelo said, the white shoes are a bit distracting. Should be easy to either remove or at least tone down.

By the way, after walking around in that mud are those shoes still white???

I agree with the distraction but it gives a good idea of the height. That must be all of 12 feet off the ground with out the shoes you could have claimed atleast 50 feet :uhoh

coldclimb

Stan wrote:

I agree with the distraction but it gives a good idea of the height. That must be all of 12 feet off the ground with out the shoes you could have claimed atleast 50 feet :uhoh

Well actually thirty feet is closer to the truth. It's a short crag, which was good for breaking into a new aspect of climbing on a cold, windy, and rainy day.

thanks for the replies guys, there's definitely a lot I have yet to learn and work with. I'll keep trying!

Stan

coldclimb wrote:

Well actually thirty feet is closer to the truth. It's a short crag, which was good for breaking into a new aspect of climbing on a cold, windy, and rainy day.

thanks for the replies guys, there's definitely a lot I have yet to learn and work with. I'll keep trying!

I loved climbing. When the granite dries out lets see some. Youv'e got everything, landscape, action, sunshine on the rock formation, macros of lichens, mosses and rock plants. leave the freee climbing to other nuttters. Keep posting.

My point about the shoes was purely that it gave an idea of height, which can be very difficult to show in vertical shots. Bear that in mind when looking domn 200ft, in a picture the scale can be lost completely.