NikonGear'23
Images => Nature, Flora, Fauna & Landscapes => Topic started by: simato73 on August 21, 2016, 11:12:07
-
From a camping trip with a friend last weekend.
-
Stunning landscapes !
I discovered this area when I was going to Scotland. I spend a night near Kendal and wandered around : I want to go again there... :-*
-
Stunning landscapes !
I discovered this area when I was going to Scotland. I spend a night near Kendal and wandered around : I want to go again there... :-*
Thank you Francis.
The Lake District is an exquisite little jewel, I am surprised that you have discovered it only now, given how strongly it is present in the collective imagination of the English people.
-
Simato - these scenes are truly beautiful and worthy of being photographed. They translate well into images.
I find some of them a bit "flat" - I would have added some contrast with a small adjustment in curves in photoshop.
When its so very overcast - the light is very diffused (which is great of course) but you need to add some contrast back then.
-
Simato - these scenes are truly beautiful and worthy of being photographed. They translate well into images.
I find some of them a bit "flat" - I would have added some contrast with a small adjustment in curves in photoshop.
When its so very overcast - the light is very diffused (which is great of course) but you need to add some contrast back then.
Hi Elsa dear - not sure why you insist on calling me Simato when you know I am a good-looking bloke called Simone ;)
Anyway... thanks for the comment, it is very relevant for me.
I have noticed looking at others pictures that mine tend to look a bit flat. At times is it because of the light under which I shot, but I have come to think it is mostly my lack of boldness in the editing process.
I tend to shy away from contrast, maybe too much, in an effort to retain control of shadows and highlights.
I have ditched all that has an Adobe badge on so no Photoshop for me. Currently I use Lightzone, which works in a completely different way and love it. It has great tools for controlling contrast and tonality both globally and locally, the limiting factor is me.
Many of the images were actually very contrasty - specifically dark land in the foreground relative to the bright gray sky. The third image was particularly bad. It is difficult for me to get the balance right in these cases, one has to flatten quite a bit the scene to make details in the foreground visible while not blowing out the sky.
Overall I am willing to admit that these images are ok, but not great. None of them will hang off the walls of my home. They were taken in relative haste while hiking in less than ideal light conditions. Also I find shooting in summer more difficult because in England is green and the images look much flatter than in the autumn or winter.
The first 5 pictures were taken close to each other in a place that has lots of potential and I will be going back specifically for taking photos, when light and season will be more favourable.
-
At times is it because of the light under which I shot, but I have come to think it is mostly my lack of boldness in the editing process.
Sweetness -
It is exactly that (the light I mean) - Landscapes are nice when photographed in cloudy / overcast situations - as it removes the terrible shadows that comes with bright sunlight. But it can be too much. Not all of your images were flat - the second one and the last one were the ones I was specifically thinking about.
Too much contrast can be horrible, but lacking contrast makes it flat. The program you are using should be able to do a small contrast adjustment. If detail is missing on either side of the scale - (depending on the image of course) it is often a good idea just to correct it a bit.
At the end of the day - it is your image - and you decide where you want to go with it. Discussing it here though might open some doors for some members - while some people might not agree with me :) That's also fine ;D
-
Simone, I too use an X-T1 + 18-135mm which I find to be a cracking combination as a walkabout system, how do you find using the combo?
Regards
Mike
PS Forgot to say super images of a super place.
-
Sweetness -
It is exactly that (the light I mean) - Landscapes are nice when photographed in cloudy / overcast situations - as it removes the terrible shadows that comes with bright sunlight. But it can be too much. Not all of your images were flat - the second one and the last one were the ones I was specifically thinking about.
Too much contrast can be horrible, but lacking contrast makes it flat. The program you are using should be able to do a small contrast adjustment. If detail is missing on either side of the scale - (depending on the image of course) it is often a good idea just to correct it a bit.
At the end of the day - it is your image - and you decide where you want to go with it. Discussing it here though might open some doors for some members - while some people might not agree with me :) That's also fine ;D
Very nice split image to show the idea - and I agree your half looks more interesting.
Regarding the matter of overcast/diffuse light vs directly sunlit landscapes, it is not always as clear cut as you make it.
Your opinion may be affected by where you live and in that case I agree that bright light from a very vertical strong light source is not a good recipe.
But the grazing sunlight in autumn/winter, especially in northern countries, is special. It is soft and brings texture and colour out of the landscape even at hours that are far from sunrise/sunset. The maximum elevation of the sun in the Lake District at the winter solstice is 12 deg. Basically the whole (short) day is at the "golden hour".
-
Simone, I too use an X-T1 + 18-135mm which I find to be a cracking combination as a walkabout system, how do you find using the combo?
Regards
Mike
PS Forgot to say super images of a super place.
Cheers Mike.
The 18-135 is optically the worst Fuji lens I have.
That is because the other lenses are so bloody good!
The 18-135 in itself is quite reasonable, especially stopped down.
It does most things reasonably well. Everything it does, some other lens does better, but no single lens can do as many things as the the 18-135.
And it is weather sealed, which means a lot to me if the weather is hostile and changing lenses is not something you would do happily and frequently.
I have shot with it in the Lakes and in Scotland in sub-zero, near blizzard conditions, and in driving rain, with confidence that it could cope.
In other conditions, I try to use other Fuji lenses to get the best quality possible.
Essentially for me it is a hiking lens. It could also be a travel lens if I traveled light, which I tend not to.
-
Your opinion may be affected by where you live and in that case I agree that bright light from a very vertical strong light source is not a good recipe.
But the grazing sunlight in autumn/winter, especially in northern countries, is special. It is soft and brings texture and colour out of the landscape even at hours that are far from sunrise/sunset. The maximum elevation of the sun in the Lake District at the winter solstice is 12 deg. Basically the whole (short) day is at the "golden hour".
Very good point - my point of reference is what we have here. Deep shadows in the valleys/mountains can spoil our images completely.
-
Certainly the lake district will test the WR quality of any lens. My copy of the 18-135mm is in my eyes is very good!
Every lens has its own characteristics, I also have the 10-24mm, 18-55mm, 56mm, 60mm. The 10-24mm is also a super lens. this is of course only my personal observations! One day perhaps I will get around to testing the lenses.
My old walkabout combo was Nikon D810 + 24-120mm, big and heavy as apposed to the Fuji combo, because i have to schlep around carrying the Nikon gear so lighter gear is a boon.
You are quite right the 18-135mm is a capable lens it ain't perfect but what lens is!
-
Simone, they are beautiful landscape images!
Elsa is right about the contrast, however, if the image was low contrast when you shot it and you would like it to be as you saw it, then so be it :)
You always seem to go to nice places and I envy your enthusiasm about hiking to them :)
-
Simone - great landscape shots!
I like to shoot landscapes too. I've often found myself struggling with my "honesty" when processing but I increasingly tend to end up with something that is more emotional (or bold..) than honest - more contrast and shadows .. probably something I've taken with me from my film days.
I agree with Jakov - the images should convey your view. The following is just a few thoughts and reaction to the discussion.
In your first shot the light seems a bit hard coming from the side - my own approach wouldn't be to suppress this as such light imho contributes to the contrasts in the image and I would also let the sky stand out more bright.
The shot that Elsa commented on is tricky - shot at long distance and long focal length in such a weather. It looks honest :)
As for the rest, I do not find them flat - on my monitor they have a good balance. However, lots of green and different green nuances can probably give the impression of less contrast(?).
I also have a Fuji (X-E1) and in the beginning (coming from a Nikon) I found the files to bee a bit tricky to process. A bit desaturated (or flat?) but after a while I got better results when I explored the default "film curve" in my processing tool (Capture One Pro) and took more control of the curve setting. In some situations I choose start with a "Linear response" and then use the curve to mould the light and contrasts in the image. I have only briefly tried LightZone and my memory says that it did not default to a "film curve" - it looked more similar to a linear response.
I've also found the WB to challenge my perception of "correct" - the camera probably knows best but I allow myself some influence. I mostly shoot with film simulation "Provia" and in general I find the WB to lean towards cool.
-
Simone, they are beautiful landscape images!
Elsa is right about the contrast, however, if the image was low contrast when you shot it and you would like it to be as you saw it, then so be it :)
You always seem to go to nice places and I envy your enthusiasm about hiking to them :)
Thanks Jakov, the first five images are taken from a very popular destination, a short hike on a very well maintained path suitable for families with children, admired for the picturesque views since Victorian times at least. This is to say there was nothing hard about it, I saw a pair of old ladies in their late 60's whizzing through it on their soft tail mountain bikes.
About the low contrast, it is not generally something I positively want to have, rather the consequence of me trying to get all the detail from the deepest shadows to the highlights. I still have to learn a way to do it in a credible way that does not look flat.
Somewhere something has got to give, I just have to find what and how.
In this search for a balance you, Lars and Elsa are right that whatever the look, if that is my choice so be it. I am still learning - the more photos I take the more it seems there is to learn - and looking at other people's pictures and talking with them is useful.
-
In this search for a balance you, Lars and Elsa are right that whatever the look, if that is my choice so be it. I am still learning - the more photos I take the more it seems there is to learn - and looking at other people's pictures and talking with them is useful.
Just by discussing it here opens the mind of all members in some direction or another - thanks for giving us the opportunity to voice our opinions :)
-
Simone - great landscape shots!
I like to shoot landscapes too. I've often found myself struggling with my "honesty" when processing but I increasingly tend to end up with something that is more emotional (or bold..) than honest - more contrast and shadows .. probably something I've taken with me from my film days.
I agree with Jakov - the images should convey your view. The following is just a few thoughts and reaction to the discussion.
In your first shot the light seems a bit hard coming from the side - my own approach wouldn't be to suppress this as such light imho contributes to the contrasts in the image and I would also let the sky stand out more bright.
The shot that Elsa commented on is tricky - shot at long distance and long focal length in such a weather. It looks honest :)
As for the rest, I do not find them flat - on my monitor they have a good balance. However, lots of green and different green nuances can probably give the impression of less contrast(?).
I also have a Fuji (X-E1) and in the beginning (coming from a Nikon) I found the files to bee a bit tricky to process. A bit desaturated (or flat?) but after a while I got better results when I explored the default "film curve" in my processing tool (Capture One Pro) and took more control of the curve setting. In some situations I choose start with a "Linear response" and then use the curve to mould the light and contrasts in the image. I have only briefly tried LightZone and my memory says that it did not default to a "film curve" - it looked more similar to a linear response.
I've also found the WB to challenge my perception of "correct" - the camera probably knows best but I allow myself some influence. I mostly shoot with film simulation "Provia" and in general I find the WB to lean towards cool.
Thanks Lars, for the kind words about the images and for the interesting thoughts.
I am not too concerned with "honesty" in post-processing. I don't add or remove elements from the picture, but all the rest, from the choice of a point of view, to the perspective, the framing (and sometimes the cropping) and obviously the post-processing is a personal interpretation and is aiming at creating something I like.
The light in the first picture is not too bad for me. I like the shininess of the ferns bent by the wind. The light is a bit harsh, yes, but not flat.
In many other shots the light is not harsh, but the images a bit flat. Some of it has to do with the flattening I have done to manage the dynamic range, but the second one did not have this issue. The greens as you said also contribute to the perceived flatness.
Elsa seems to have peeled off a thin opaque film from the top of the image I had posted. Sometimes I get to that point and am pleased with the result, but other times it seems unnatural and overcooked, probably because I could have done it better, so in the end with most images I tend to be conservative.
I manage my pictures still within Aperture but don't use the Apple RAW engine any longer. My raw files are developed in Iridient and the tiffs further processed in Lightzone, without using Lightzone's raw converter. If (when) I move away from Aperture I might explore more Lightzone also for direct editing of raw files, but I have to say I like Iridient a lot.
Finally, WB. I also tend to find the auto WB a bit too cool, but am absolutely not accurate and not systematic about correcting it. I just occasionally change it to something that looks more or less ok.
-
I am very happy with shots 2,4,5,6 in the opening post because they give me a sense on the size & form of this landscape. .... and they make me long to be there & breathe the air!
-
About the low contrast, it is not generally something I positively want to have, rather the consequence of me trying to get all the detail from the deepest shadows to the highlights. I still have to learn a way to do it in a credible way that does not look flat.
Somewhere something has got to give, I just have to find what and how.
In this search for a balance you, Lars and Elsa are right that whatever the look, if that is my choice so be it. I am still learning - the more photos I take the more it seems there is to learn - and looking at other people's pictures and talking with them is useful.
For me the book "Photoshop Professional" by Dan Margulis was an eye opener years ago. Correct colors, great highlights and shadows, eye pleasing contrast.
Do not be fooled by the title. You learn seeing channels and using layers, things that are common to any advanced editing program, not Photoshop especially.
You can start out with creating a TIFF in Photo Ninja, which I use to treat my Fuji Xtrans2 files from the X100T (same sensor as the XT-1), and later do the fine tunig in any other program.
After these technical notes I want to refer to the artistic decisions:
In film days my "look" was the Fuji Sensia 100 look. This look was what I felt was more or less the way I saw the world. I looked at the projection of my slide or a qualified print and said: " Yes, that is the way I remember it, that is the way I felt it".
With digital came the more "negative like qualities" even in the JPEGs, because all pictures can be treated to look very differently when I edit them.
And: It was not always easy to set the camera to a JPEG setting that looked like "Fuji Sensia" or "The way I felt the scene".
On the D3 with 1.4/50G I felt "D2X Mode III with sharpening set to value 5" was a very good resemblence of my beloved Fuji Sensia look, but every camera has a different response curve and "Fuji Film simulation" on a Fuji Digital camera does not necessarily look like Fuji Film.
So
If you remember a low contrast scene and want to show it that way: Just do it. If you very sensitively pump the pic a very little bit like our friendly lady from South Africa did, also good.
Make your artistic decision and acquire the editing skills you need to create your vision on screen and paper!
Love
Frank
-
Frank,
Thanks for your comments. Glad you liked the photos.
You can start out with creating a TIFF in Photo Ninja, which I use to treat my Fuji Xtrans2 files from the X100T (same sensor as the XT-1), and later do the fine tunig in any other program.
I use Iridient instead but the idea is the same. Then I use Lightzone, not Photoshop. I like it, it is simple, it does 99% of what I want and I cannot be bothered learning to use something else. Life is too short and there are so many other interesting (or necessary) things to do.
I used to shoot Provia or sometimes Velvia, but since digital I have never wanted to get the same look from my digital files.
I just work the file till I get something I like.
Sometimes I want to make it look as I saw it, but other times I try to make it look in a different way, perhaps as I thought it should have looked (but it didn't) when I took the shot.
-
Thanks Lars, for the kind words about the images and for the interesting thoughts.
Thanks Simone - I'm glad you recieved my feedback that way. I'm definitely no expert and just trying to draw on others experiences and found the discussion interesting.
I am not too concerned with "honesty" in post-processing. I don't add or remove elements from the picture, but all the rest, from the choice of a point of view, to the perspective, the framing (and sometimes the cropping) and obviously the post-processing is a personal interpretation and is aiming at creating something I like.
As for “honesty” - any image is of course a personal interpretation of a given scenery. My point about honesty is that I've often found myself focusing (too much..) on reproducing a scenery as close to real life as possible - then it tends to become more a technical discipline instead of a personal interpretation.
The light in the first picture is not too bad for me. I like the shininess of the ferns bent by the wind. The light is a bit harsh, yes, but not flat.
Exactly – and I agree. I think you misunderstood me. I was not suggesting the light was bad and I like the expression the wind creates – the nature of the light, the shininess as you say. So my point was to even allow it to stand out more clearly. I don't find it flat.
In many other shots the light is not harsh, but the images a bit flat. Some of it has to do with the flattening I have done to manage the dynamic range, but the second one did not have this issue. The greens as you said also contribute to the perceived flatness.
Elsa seems to have peeled off a thin opaque film from the top of the image I had posted. Sometimes I get to that point and am pleased with the result, but other times it seems unnatural and overcooked, probably because I could have done it better, so in the end with most images I tend to be conservative.
OK – thanks for explaining. In number 2 the nature of the light/sligtht haze (?) is probably responsible for less tonal contrast in the greens (or is it the mid tones..). I do not find the light harsh in your shots .
I manage my pictures still within Aperture but don't use the Apple RAW engine any longer. My raw files are developed in Iridient and the tiffs further processed in Lightzone, without using Lightzone's raw converter. If (when) I move away from Aperture I might explore more Lightzone also for direct editing of raw files, but I have to say I like Iridient a lot.
Finally, WB. I also tend to find the auto WB a bit too cool, but am absolutely not accurate and not systematic about correcting it. I just occasionally change it to something that looks more or less ok.
Interesting. I might try a similar approach and process Tiffs in antother program – I sometimes find the JPG output in Capture One Pro (Fuji X-E1 files) looking slightly odd. Probably related to sharpening – whether it helps to export Tiffs instead could be interesting to see.
Recently I've spent time using Color Efex Pro that has some interesting profiles/presets - e.g. one for tonal contrast I've used a few times. It only accepts JPG but I sometimes just use it for exploring adjustments and alternative expression.