Helpful Posts Helpful Posts:  0
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Noble falls

  1. #1

    Noble falls

    Noble falls

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Grafton, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,340
    Real Name
    Allan Short

    re: Noble falls

    Warren: this image has a very high dynamic range, and is a little over exposed as to the foaming turning waters which have lost a lot of detail. The water has a nice flow to it maybe taken in the .5 to 1.5 sec range, you are using a fairly high f-stop as the foreground stone to the background is in focus. For me the saturation is a little heavy in the reds, it also looks to me to not have any true black so the image looks a little flat, maybe try pulling the histogram to the left that should bring down the whites and increase the blacks. These are the type of scenes I like to shoot.
    Remember these are only my thoughts, you and others may differ, which is ok.

    Cheers:

    Allan

  3. #3
    Moderator Dave Humphries's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Windsor, Berks, UK
    Posts
    16,035
    Real Name
    Dave Humphries :)

    re: Noble falls

    Hi Warren,

    You may find this thread helpful to avoid us telling you stuff you already know or being unaware of the limitations at the scene you faced;
    How to Get Effective Feedback for your Posted Images

    The shot is over exposed as Allan has mentioned, I suspect, from observation of the histogram, the source may have been a jpg, rather than RAW, which has limited what you could do with LR 4.4 (e.g. bring down exposure).

    The EXIF data is Nikon D90, 52mm, iso 125, shutter speed 0.5s, aperture f/22.

    The EC was set at -5 stops, but as you were in Manual mode, I believe all this does is 'bias' the meter and possibly caused you to over expose - this is something Nikons do (but Canons don't) - arguably great if you know (and notice), but a trap if you don't.

    Hope that helps,

  4. #4

    Re: Noble falls

    thank you allen and dave your comments are very welcome i used a large aperture as it was an overcastday and the only way to get the flow of the water will have another go in lightroom and see what i can do

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Grafton, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,340
    Real Name
    Allan Short

    Re: Noble falls

    Warren just to mess you up an aperture of f/22 is not a large aperture it is a small aperture. The number is large 22 however the hole size is the opposite of what you think (large number large hole). If I mess this up someone will straighten me up, an f/2.8 has a large opening, and f/5.6 is 1/4 the size opening of the f/2.8 opening, an f/11 is 1/16 that of the f/2.8 and the f/22 is 1/64th the size of the f/2.8 how is that to mess with your mind. Just remember this small number the bigger the hole, whereas the larger the number the smaller the hole. Important thing to know as you stated in your post that you used a large aperture I could see for the image that was incorrect which was shown by Dave that you image's EXIF data said it was shoot at f/22.
    Yes sometimes it takes a while to wrap your head around some things.

    Cheers:

    Allan

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •