Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited May 29, 2008
I would like to thank everyone who posted their images in the first round. It is now time to begin the second round. I will begin shortly....... stay tuned:ivar
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited May 29, 2008
Lower falls
I don't like the waterfall in the center of the composition
The light is flat which makes the scene two dimensional
I like the colors and long exposure
I think this image is interesting only because of the colors. Had a more dynamic composition been used or light striking the falls and not the trees in the FG, maybe there would be more interest. I would mask the yellow trees and darken them with the intension of creating depth. By leaving the waterfall lighter it would appear further away. I would also crop this image into a square taking away from the left side only.
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited June 17, 2008
This is a great effect
However, I think it should be the background of something else.
The exposure , focus , color and composition are all superb. This looks like fog over a ridge of trees? If so, I am thinking that there may have been a more emcompassing composition which would include more environment around the sunburst. Do you have other compositions?
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited June 28, 2008
In regards to my posts here, If I dont hear back from you in about a week I will move on to the next.
Moving on.......
Great imagethumb
I believe there is only one issue and a simple crop may fix it. I will let you tell me what the crop may be or if you can justify the way it is now.
Regarding the other elements of the image, the light is harsh giving texture to most of the detail, the composition is strong giving the black and white shape and the dark sky keeps the eye from leaving the scene.
I am reminded of a still from a black and white Hollywood film and the tone is set for some drama to take place. If you study those old black and white films there are magnificent compositions, much like this one, used throughout. Because there was no color in those days composition was paramount, no pun intended.
Thanks for the input! It seems like I sent this in weeks ago. I kept checking the thread, but after awhile I thought it ether got lost, or it was ignored.
I will say this, the small computer rendering does not approach the print. I am vary pleased with the actual print.
I am really interested in hearing your thoughts on the crop. I can't articulate why I cropped it this way. This is almost full frame, with just a little off the sides.
I am going to play with the crop a little, and will love to see your crop.
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited July 10, 2008
I am going to crit your work as a series rather than one shot at a time. I am sure you have many other images then these, correct me if I am wrong. However, by the look of these I am making that assumption.
I do appreciate the light in all three images.
I like the composition in the first two.
However, images 1 and 3 are very centered compositions, with a prominent element dead center. I dont mind it in the Golden Gate image as the sunrise is very intriguing taking the emphasis away from the center tower. In the snowy scene though I think the dark center horizon is a bit overpowering, taking away potential depth.
the images all show a strong bold style that helps build the composition. It appears that you understand what makes a landscape photograph work. From the clouds over the sandstone buttes complimenting the skyline to the distant tower of the Golden Gate bridge partially obscured by haze, there are details in all the images that make a complex combination of elements adding to the interest of each image. The more complex the subject matter the more interest there is to the viewer
Regarding the composition of the third image taken, just a guess, in Big Cottonwood Canyon UT, I feel cramped. I would like to see more on the right and left. Maybe this would have been better as a horizontal?
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited July 28, 2008
I could not resist commenting on Steven's images since he was just in my workshop about painting with light.
I was impressed with Steve's enthusiasm and preparedness, as he was the only one who showed up with more than one flash light. In fact he carried three different lights plus one 15million candle power megalight
He also understood how to move the lights in order to evenly illuminate the subject. However, this was one of my critiques about his images. What I like is when the light is used as an accent rather than a primary light source. Therefore, the flashlight is pointed at only certain subject matter that should be pointed out, as well, the light needs to be moved to different locations during one exposure creating texture to the subject.
Regarding the images above:
I like the stars being used as a second read to the illuminated subject.
I like the proportions of the subject to the sky.
I like the warm color of the light contrasting the cool night sky.
What I think could improve the first two images is something close up to give depth. Notice the bush in the FG of the third image and how much it adds to the photo. I believe many night/star images suffer from this same problem. I am glad to see you understand and nailed it at Mono Lake
If you have any from this last weeks shoot please post here
Thanks Marc. With a normal lens it seems a lot harder to get that extra depth of field at night because you want to open up the aperture. Now w/ the Tilt / Shift lens we don't have to worry about that.
That shot at Mono Lake was a complete accident. Me and a friend left our 35mm's out over night and my battery died before the exposure blew out.
LUCK. Light painting seems like it would be the hardest form of landscape photography to perfect.
The second night of light painting I was full of enthusiasm too. So much that I was running across the beach and tripped and flat on my face with a spot light on me from above from a fellow workshopper. I was a little embarrassed.
The oak trees in the foreground were painted by me but that awesome glow in the middle of the background was from a light that Marc left sitting for this shot. I like how it seems to give the viewer a destination.
I had a lot of fun and hope to attend another one of your workshops soon!
One more question where or why am I getting a green cast in the middle image w/ the hoodoos?
Looks like something in the atmosphere but I have a friend who shoots many celestial images and he might know what it is from. I do not believe it is anything you are doing in post. What is the exposure information for this image?
Just heard from my friend, the armature astronomers call it "sky glow" which is lights from a very distant city up to 200 miles away can cause the glow.
I pushed it a stop in the RAW to get all the stars to show up.
You have maxed out the exposure time in order to keep the stars sharp. During just a one minute exposure, the stars will become blurred. I do enjoy seing the stars sharp and the glow as it provides some interest. Thank you for posting your images and keep dragging those lights around, as it is paying off
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited August 6, 2008
Title: Valley view
I dont see a name with this image but I wanted to comment on it.
The aspect ratio is well chosen for this location and composition
This was a fabulous time to be in one of the most spectacular locations in the world
I recommend darkening the sky with a mask.
This will bring attention to the wonderful snow covered trees and reflection of them in the river.
Here is an example. However, if you have the original in RAW format I would process it darker to keep the sky from banding when darkening. There is a number of ways to do this. For this example I made a selection of the sky with the quick selection tool, then made a curves adj layer on that selection and darkened the density. I then refined the edges of the selection with a varrying size and opacity soft brush. If you have not used masks before I will post a copy of the mask.
I am going to crit your work as a series rather than one shot at a time. I am sure you have many other images then these, correct me if I am wrong. However, by the look of these I am making that assumption.
I do appreciate the light in all three images.
I like the composition in the first two.
However, images 1 and 3 are very centered compositions, with a prominent element dead center. I dont mind it in the Golden Gate image as the sunrise is very intriguing taking the emphasis away from the center tower. In the snowy scene though I think the dark center horizon is a bit overpowering, taking away potential depth.
the images all show a strong bold style that helps build the composition. It appears that you understand what makes a landscape photograph work. From the clouds over the sandstone buttes complimenting the skyline to the distant tower of the Golden Gate bridge partially obscured by haze, there are details in all the images that make a complex combination of elements adding to the interest of each image. The more complex the subject matter the more interest there is to the viewer
Regarding the composition of the third image taken, just a guess, in Big Cottonwood Canyon UT, I feel cramped. I would like to see more on the right and left. Maybe this would have been better as a horizontal?
Great series
Hello Marc--
It has been months since I have visited dgrin (shame on me) and I just saw this post of yours. Thank you for taking the time to critique my images. The third image was in fact in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Shot several years ago, this was one of the first images I shot with a digital camera. Interestingly enough, I wanted to shoot this as a horizontal, but it just didn't work. It didn't do the sky justice, and for some reason it just felt entirely out of whack. I couldn't get away from the FG reflection and how it pulled the viewer into and through the image.
It's interesting as well that you commented on the dark horizon in that shot. Previous to reading this, I had revisited that image since my first pp of it, and felt the same way you did. It is a very slight adjustment, but I brought out just a bit more shadow detail in the trees.
As for the centered composition in the SF image, there was so much to fit in! I wanted to include both the sun and the far bridge tower, and as such, pretty much had to center the main tower of the bridge there (in order to not have those other elements too close to the edge of the frame). I feel that there are adequate elements to keep the viewer primarily unaware of that "centered" feeling, but it always has bothered me the slightest bit. Oh well! Again--thanks for your comments.
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited August 7, 2008
Adam,
My grandfather used to travel for months shooting with no cell phone The only distraction was eating and a place to sleep, now we have a loundry list of items to take our attention. So regarding your timing, no problem.
The concept of retaining all the detail in every part of an image is trendy now with HDR. However, I consider two methods when this becomes a discussion. First, prior to the option to blend bracketed exposures as in Photomatix or HDR the only option one had was to recompose. This forced the photographer to seek light with the correct dynamic range, that is, the light that fell within 4 stops from dark to white. In Hollywood, set lighting was just the same, the entire set had to be within the dynamic range of the 35mm film. Now that was a challenge considering a moving camera and actors and and I have always looked at dark areas as a useful tool for creating composition and not a opportunity to use HDR. In other words let the area go DARK. I am just now, in the last few years discovering a different way of composing. I believe your image of Little Cottonwood Canyon is one that because it could not be framed differently may be improved by blending a lighter esposure for the trees into the exposure for the sky. Great images though, and I hope to meet up with you in the Wasatch some day.
Good think I stop in here every now and again. I had forgot I sent this in.
The weather, light, quite, , see your breath cold that evening was amazing. I wish an image could capture everything I saw and felt.
I must have stood taking in the magic of the view for ten minutes before I could rouse my conscious thoughts, and body into motion. Like hey! Dumbo, this light ain't gonna last!!!! Get the camera!
I have printed this out at 16 X 32, framed at 24 X 40, and I am happy with the results.
I will take another look at the sky, and see if I can bring a little more out of it, but all honesty the sky looked pretty close to the image. At least to the best of my very fallible memory.
Thanks for your input, I always value it, and appreciate the the time you took!
One more last question? ?
I was hoping to leave a camera out all night at your workshop but didn't because of the clouds.
I have a old OM2 35mm that I would like to leave out this Saturday. Would it be ok to leave it out if there is a half moon out and I leave the apeture at f16 to get some foreground in the shot?
0
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
I was hoping to leave a camera out all night at your workshop but didn't because of the clouds.
I have a old OM2 35mm that I would like to leave out this Saturday. Would it be ok to leave it out if there is a half moon out and I leave the apeture at f16 to get some foreground in the shot?
Steve,
Just make sure you are pointing it 90 degrees from the moon. I would guess that at 200 iso and an aperature of 5.6 one hour would be sufficient. By now you have your results though so what did you get?
Steve,
Just make sure you are pointing it 90 degrees from the moon. I would guess that at 200 iso and an aperature of 5.6 one hour would be sufficient. By now you have your results though so what did you get?
Shoot I left intervolometer at home!
With the film body I tried 3 hours at f8 iso 100 velvia. The moon was supposed to set at midnight but I didn't factor in mountains so I got about an hour of moon light on the foreground and middleground and 3 hrs of star trails. I took another exposure for the sky if I needed it for an hour.
I ripped the film in half trying to get it out of the old camera. If I'm lucky it didn't rip right through the image. Now I get to wait and see. The odds seem against me but maybe I'll get lucky. I'll find out and let you know.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm sure I'll be able to try that out. -iso 100 5.6 2 hours (Velvia only comes in 100 I think) I'll just have to take another workshop.
On another photo 30 sec captured digitally at f11 iso 200 at the very end of twilight w/ the moon combined w/ some light painting. Moving the light source at better angle away from the camera like you suggested to me at your workshop.
I got this http://sieren.smugmug.com/gallery/1053553_GwDEu/1/350693535_tkKSU#350693535_tkKSU-A-LB
Cool
If you were there you could of lit up the mountain for me w/ that Cyclops. j/k.
Kauai
I am in Kauai right now heading out to shoot the moon, if something comes out I will post:D[/quote]
Well than I hope somegthing comes out. Kauai , I'm jealous! Never been to Hawaii.
Saw your work in Venice and your 2009 Calendar w/ all 4 of you it. There is a name on there I didn't recognize is that your wife?
Great stuff!!
0
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited August 18, 2008
Steve,
Zandria is my sister yes she has been shooting for years as well, most just see her work in the dog calendars as she loves dogs and has been photographing all kinds for years now.
Here is a full moon over Poipu taken with 800 iso for 48sec F8 Nikor 16mm on my Canon Mark3.
Thank you for your images Steve, I hope you keep "shooting for the moon"
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited August 19, 2008
I think you have found a great foreground
I like the long exposure for the water
I like the point of view
I would rather see the top of the large boulder on the right and maybe less foreground. With nothing else to work with, no other exposures that is, I would crop into this one. Let me know if you would like me to do so?
Also I will explain why I pointed out the above items unless you would like to explain first
I think you have found a great foreground
I like the long exposure for the water
I like the point of view
I would rather see the top of the large boulder on the right and maybe less foreground. With nothing else to work with, no other exposures that is, I would crop into this one. Let me know if you would like me to do so?
Also I will explain why I pointed out the above items unless you would like to explain first
Thanks for choosing this one sir:mlane
Ahan ok less foreground well i was also critical about that rock's top on the right. The reason i was not comfortable was that if i remember correctly. Sun was very low and Edges of the river were looking boring in the frame as they were too dark and shapless so i had only option to cut the above portion.
Let me know if you would like me to do so?
:mlane Please
Thine is the beauty of light; mine is the song of fire. Thy beauty exalts the heart; my song inspires the soul. Allama Iqbal
Thanks for choosing this one sir:mlane
Ahan ok less foreground well i was also critical about that rock's top on the right. The reason i was not comfortable was that if i remember correctly. Sun was very low and Edges of the river were looking boring in the frame as they were too dark and shapless so i had only option to cut the above portion.
Regarding the choice to leave the boring parts out sounds good. I would just crop in more, making it appear intentional. As it is now, it looks like a mistake
Here is how I would crop this image
I cropped from the right and bottom. I wanted the large boulder in the upper right to be intentionally cropped as to take interest away, and to remove an entire white chunk of quartz on the bottom as it was partially cropped as well.
I like the foreground so much because of the pattern of quartz and the curved shape of the top. Had this been a straight top it may have split the image in two.
The water is just soft enough and containes texture and detail too long of an exposure will turn areas white which does not look good.
The point of view is just high enough to see down on the foreground and just low enough to include a fair amount of the darker water separating the FG rock with the others. Good job
Finally I recommend one more change to the FG. This will involve tone mapping with quick masks. I will do this next if you like?
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited August 21, 2008
Here it is
first
Make a quick mask of the lower section of the foreground boulder like such,
The area in white is the mask
second
Adjust it darker with curves or levels, I use curves.
third
Make another quick mask of the top section of the boulder, the shape of the mask is visible in the layers called "+contrast top rock" in image here:
fourth
Do the move, which is keys combined, Mac: comand + option + shift + E. This gets you a flat copy of the image with layers below.
fifth
Go to the green channel in layers palette, select all and then copy (comand + c) then back in layers create a new layer and paste (comand + v)
sixth
blur this layer with gaussian blur filter, in this image I used 7.5 amount.
Then change the blend mode to Overlay.
seventh
make a layer mask on the blurred layer and remove the overlay effect from sections that become too dark. You will notice the masked areas in black in the image above on the blurred layer.
The 5th and 6th steps are done to soften the overlay effect and add contrast in the amount blurred. Often this is done in LAB but for this example it works fine just bluring the green channel of the file.
The objective here is to shape the image by guiding the viewers eye to the interesting parts.
Comments
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Lower falls
I don't like the waterfall in the center of the composition
The light is flat which makes the scene two dimensional
I like the colors and long exposure
I think this image is interesting only because of the colors. Had a more dynamic composition been used or light striking the falls and not the trees in the FG, maybe there would be more interest. I would mask the yellow trees and darken them with the intension of creating depth. By leaving the waterfall lighter it would appear further away. I would also crop this image into a square taking away from the left side only.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
This is a great effect
However, I think it should be the background of something else.
The exposure , focus , color and composition are all superb. This looks like fog over a ridge of trees? If so, I am thinking that there may have been a more emcompassing composition which would include more environment around the sunburst. Do you have other compositions?
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Moving on.......
Great image
I believe there is only one issue and a simple crop may fix it. I will let you tell me what the crop may be or if you can justify the way it is now.
Regarding the other elements of the image, the light is harsh giving texture to most of the detail, the composition is strong giving the black and white shape
I am reminded of a still from a black and white Hollywood film and the tone is set for some drama to take place. If you study those old black and white films there are magnificent compositions, much like this one, used throughout. Because there was no color in those days composition was paramount, no pun intended
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Thanks for the input! It seems like I sent this in weeks ago. I kept checking the thread, but after awhile I thought it ether got lost, or it was ignored.
I will say this, the small computer rendering does not approach the print. I am vary pleased with the actual print.
I am really interested in hearing your thoughts on the crop. I can't articulate why I cropped it this way. This is almost full frame, with just a little off the sides.
I am going to play with the crop a little, and will love to see your crop.
Thanks again,
Sam
SFlights_crop.jpg
The main reason for cropping the bottom was to take the horizon out of the center.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I never saw that. I think it really made a positive difference.
Sam
I do appreciate the light in all three images.
I like the composition in the first two.
However, images 1 and 3 are very centered compositions, with a prominent element dead center. I dont mind it in the Golden Gate image as the sunrise is very intriguing taking the emphasis away from the center tower. In the snowy scene though I think the dark center horizon is a bit overpowering, taking away potential depth.
the images all show a strong bold style that helps build the composition. It appears that you understand what makes a landscape photograph work. From the clouds over the sandstone buttes complimenting the skyline to the distant tower of the Golden Gate bridge partially obscured by haze, there are details in all the images that make a complex combination of elements adding to the interest of each image. The more complex the subject matter the more interest there is to the viewer
Regarding the composition of the third image taken, just a guess, in Big Cottonwood Canyon UT, I feel cramped. I would like to see more on the right and left. Maybe this would have been better as a horizontal?
Great series
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I was impressed with Steve's enthusiasm and preparedness, as he was the only one who showed up with more than one flash light. In fact he carried three different lights plus one 15million candle power megalight
He also understood how to move the lights in order to evenly illuminate the subject. However, this was one of my critiques about his images. What I like is when the light is used as an accent rather than a primary light source. Therefore, the flashlight is pointed at only certain subject matter that should be pointed out, as well, the light needs to be moved to different locations during one exposure creating texture to the subject.
Regarding the images above:
I like the stars being used as a second read to the illuminated subject.
I like the proportions of the subject to the sky.
I like the warm color of the light contrasting the cool night sky.
What I think could improve the first two images is something close up to give depth. Notice the bush in the FG of the third image and how much it adds to the photo. I believe many night/star images suffer from this same problem. I am glad to see you understand and nailed it at Mono Lake
If you have any from this last weeks shoot please post here
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
One more question where or why am I getting a green cast in the middle image w/ the hoodoos?
This one was from the 3rd shoot on the workshop in an unusual rugged beach that I have driven by many times but did not know it existed.
Thanks for helping me remove that strong magenta cast from the gold blue polarizer.
That shot at Mono Lake was a complete accident. Me and a friend left our 35mm's out over night and my battery died before the exposure blew out.
LUCK. Light painting seems like it would be the hardest form of landscape photography to perfect.
The second night of light painting I was full of enthusiasm too. So much that I was running across the beach and tripped and flat on my face with a spot light on me from above from a fellow workshopper. I was a little embarrassed.
The oak trees in the foreground were painted by me but that awesome glow in the middle of the background was from a light that Marc left sitting for this shot. I like how it seems to give the viewer a destination.
I had a lot of fun and hope to attend another one of your workshops soon!
I'll post some more from the workshop.
Looks like something in the atmosphere
Just heard from my friend, the armature astronomers call it "sky glow" which is lights from a very distant city up to 200 miles away can cause the glow.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
f4 30 secs iso 1600
It might be the 1600
I pushed it a stop in the RAW to get all the stars to show up.
You have maxed out the exposure time in order to keep the stars sharp. During just a one minute exposure, the stars will become blurred. I do enjoy seing the stars sharp and the glow as it provides some interest. Thank you for posting your images and keep dragging those lights around, as it is paying off
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I dont see a name with this image but I wanted to comment on it.
The aspect ratio is well chosen for this location and composition
This was a fabulous time to be in one of the most spectacular locations in the world
I recommend darkening the sky with a mask.
This will bring attention to the wonderful snow covered trees and reflection of them in the river.
Here is an example. However, if you have the original in RAW format I would process it darker to keep the sky from banding when darkening. There is a number of ways to do this. For this example I made a selection of the sky with the quick selection tool, then made a curves adj layer on that selection and darkened the density. I then refined the edges of the selection with a varrying size and opacity soft brush. If you have not used masks before I will post a copy of the mask.
valleyview.jpg
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
It has been months since I have visited dgrin (shame on me) and I just saw this post of yours. Thank you for taking the time to critique my images. The third image was in fact in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Shot several years ago, this was one of the first images I shot with a digital camera. Interestingly enough, I wanted to shoot this as a horizontal, but it just didn't work. It didn't do the sky justice, and for some reason it just felt entirely out of whack. I couldn't get away from the FG reflection and how it pulled the viewer into and through the image.
It's interesting as well that you commented on the dark horizon in that shot. Previous to reading this, I had revisited that image since my first pp of it, and felt the same way you did. It is a very slight adjustment, but I brought out just a bit more shadow detail in the trees.
As for the centered composition in the SF image, there was so much to fit in! I wanted to include both the sun and the far bridge tower, and as such, pretty much had to center the main tower of the bridge there (in order to not have those other elements too close to the edge of the frame). I feel that there are adequate elements to keep the viewer primarily unaware of that "centered" feeling, but it always has bothered me the slightest bit. Oh well! Again--thanks for your comments.
www.adambarkerphotography.com
My grandfather used to travel for months shooting with no cell phone
The concept of retaining all the detail in every part of an image is trendy now with HDR. However, I consider two methods when this becomes a discussion. First, prior to the option to blend bracketed exposures as in Photomatix or HDR the only option one had was to recompose. This forced the photographer to seek light with the correct dynamic range, that is, the light that fell within 4 stops from dark to white. In Hollywood, set lighting was just the same, the entire set had to be within the dynamic range of the 35mm film. Now that was a challenge considering a moving camera and actors and and
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
This is in response to Yosemite Valley View.
Good think I stop in here every now and again. I had forgot I sent this in.
The weather, light, quite, , see your breath cold that evening was amazing. I wish an image could capture everything I saw and felt.
I must have stood taking in the magic of the view for ten minutes before I could rouse my conscious thoughts, and body into motion. Like hey! Dumbo, this light ain't gonna last!!!! Get the camera!
I have printed this out at 16 X 32, framed at 24 X 40, and I am happy with the results.
I will take another look at the sky, and see if I can bring a little more out of it, but all honesty the sky looked pretty close to the image. At least to the best of my very fallible memory.
Thanks for your input, I always value it, and appreciate the the time you took!
Sam
I was hoping to leave a camera out all night at your workshop but didn't because of the clouds.
I have a old OM2 35mm that I would like to leave out this Saturday. Would it be ok to leave it out if there is a half moon out and I leave the apeture at f16 to get some foreground in the shot?
Steve,
Just make sure you are pointing it 90 degrees from the moon. I would guess that at 200 iso and an aperature of 5.6 one hour would be sufficient. By now you have your results though so what did you get?
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Shoot I left intervolometer at home!
With the film body I tried 3 hours at f8 iso 100 velvia. The moon was supposed to set at midnight but I didn't factor in mountains so I got about an hour of moon light on the foreground and middleground and 3 hrs of star trails. I took another exposure for the sky if I needed it for an hour.
I ripped the film in half trying to get it out of the old camera. If I'm lucky it didn't rip right through the image. Now I get to wait and see. The odds seem against me but maybe I'll get lucky. I'll find out and let you know.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm sure I'll be able to try that out. -iso 100 5.6 2 hours (Velvia only comes in 100 I think) I'll just have to take another workshop.
On another photo 30 sec captured digitally at f11 iso 200 at the very end of twilight w/ the moon combined w/ some light painting. Moving the light source at better angle away from the camera like you suggested to me at your workshop.
I got this
http://sieren.smugmug.com/gallery/1053553_GwDEu/1/350693535_tkKSU#350693535_tkKSU-A-LB
Cool
If you were there you could of lit up the mountain for me w/ that Cyclops. j/k.
I am in Kauai right now heading out to shoot the moon, if something comes out I will post:D
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I am in Kauai right now heading out to shoot the moon, if something comes out I will post:D[/quote]
Well than I hope somegthing comes out. Kauai , I'm jealous! Never been to Hawaii.
Saw your work in Venice and your 2009 Calendar w/ all 4 of you it. There is a name on there I didn't recognize is that your wife?
Great stuff!!
Zandria is my sister
Here is a full moon over Poipu taken with 800 iso for 48sec F8 Nikor 16mm on my Canon Mark3.
Thank you for your images Steve, I hope you keep "shooting for the moon"
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I think you have found a great foreground
I like the long exposure for the water
I like the point of view
I would rather see the top of the large boulder on the right and maybe less foreground. With nothing else to work with, no other exposures that is, I would crop into this one. Let me know if you would like me to do so?
Also I will explain why I pointed out the above items unless you would like to explain first
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Ahan ok less foreground well i was also critical about that rock's top on the right. The reason i was not comfortable was that if i remember correctly. Sun was very low and Edges of the river were looking boring in the frame as they were too dark and shapless so i had only option to cut the above portion.
:mlane Please
My Gallery
Here is how I would crop this image
I cropped from the right and bottom. I wanted the large boulder in the upper right to be intentionally cropped as to take interest away, and to remove an entire white chunk of quartz on the bottom as it was partially cropped as well.
I like the foreground so much because of the pattern of quartz and the curved shape of the top. Had this been a straight top it may have split the image in two.
The water is just soft enough and containes texture and detail
The point of view is just high enough to see down on the foreground and just low enough to include a fair amount of the darker water separating the FG rock with the others. Good job
Finally I recommend one more change to the FG. This will involve tone mapping with quick masks. I will do this next if you like?
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
:mlaneYes Sir Please Sir
Btw wow what a difference cropping has made
My Gallery
first
Make a quick mask of the lower section of the foreground boulder like such,
The area in white is the mask
second
Adjust it darker with curves or levels, I use curves.
third
Make another quick mask of the top section of the boulder, the shape of the mask is visible in the layers called "+contrast top rock" in image here:
fourth
Do the move, which is keys combined, Mac: comand + option + shift + E. This gets you a flat copy of the image with layers below.
fifth
Go to the green channel in layers palette, select all and then copy (comand + c) then back in layers create a new layer and paste (comand + v)
sixth
blur this layer with gaussian blur filter, in this image I used 7.5 amount.
Then change the blend mode to Overlay.
seventh
make a layer mask on the blurred layer and remove the overlay effect from sections that become too dark. You will notice the masked areas in black in the image above on the blurred layer.
The 5th and 6th steps are done to soften the overlay effect and add contrast in the amount blurred. Often this is done in LAB but for this example it works fine just bluring the green channel of the file.
The objective here is to shape the image by guiding the viewers eye to the interesting parts.
before:
after:
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook