Snow Time

[dragonaxe]

Skendleby...near Skegness, Lincolnshire, last weekend

C&C anyone?







(tried resizing the images as they were a tad small )

[Donald]

Gareth

No picture showing up at my end

[dragonaxe]

Gareth

No picture showing up at my end

Can you see them now, Don?
It's been soooo long since I've posted pics, I can barely remember how to do it!!

[Donald]

Can you see them now...?

Yes. They're there as thumbnails. Don't know if you want to have a read of this to try and master the art of posting them inline.

[dragonaxe]

link to CiC album included..hope it helps

[dragonaxe]

bump

[Suzanne]

Gareth, those are Beautiful! What an idylic spot. I especially love the rose.
We finally got snow here in Vermont, too. Just in time for Christmas! So it had me thinking about a few snow shots that I'd taken last year. The idea was to try and figure out snow a little. I thought I'd try a little pp on them and see what happened. I would love your comments and suggestions. (Help always appreciated with a thankful heart )

My girls

TOO white?

[Suzanne]

I thought i'd show where this started. I thought it might help.

[Donald]

The main point of this post was to raise a question, prompted by Gareth's first image, about pressing the shutter button whilst the snow is falling and at what speed people think you need to be shooting to get falling snow looking like falling snow.

I think there are two extremes. Go for a slow shutter and you get, ultimately, a white wall as the falling snow covers all of the space. But go slightly faster and you get 'streaks' of snow - a bit like start trails. On the other hand, go even faster and you freeze the snow and get lots and lots of white(ish) dots.

So, how would you manage it? When would you go for the slower shutter, if at all? When would you go for the faster shutter, if at all?

Discuss!

[Katy Noelle]

Hi, Gareth! Firstly, these photos make me want to be there! and I really like these images - the subjects and mood are really moving.

Okay, however, I'm going to have a go at some critique and you "guys" can tell me if I'm close or not.

#1 I love the idea of the black and white and the shapes of the shrubberies (NEE!) and the way that the dark background shows up the falling snow. I wonder if Peter would say that the line of the hedge, running right through the middle of the photo, leads your eye off of the photo. I don't know what to do about that but I wonder if you could have used the rule of thirds to advantage, a little bit more. For example, I wonder if you could crop it so that the church was more in the third or, if there was more sky and less field or vice-versa. Also, I think that a few of your shots could be leveled out with the vertical lines straighter.

#2 and 3 The backgrounds are a little busy. I wonder if you could have shifted yourself to get a cleaner, less busy, background. Also, did you use spot metering? That, sometimes, helps to make the background fade away a bit. Also, the branch looks a little under exposed and the rose looks like the highlights are blown. Aren't those the main subject and point of the photos? I think that spot metering would have helped with that.

#4 I think that, perhaps, you could have put the horizon on the lower third and "highlighted" the idea that we're small beings (on the bench ) watching a grand sky. That's just one idea. I'm sure that there's more that others will say about filters and exposure for the sky vs. land, etc. but, I'll let someone else who knows more about all that, chime in. Also, someone may mention cloning out the wire pole. I don't know if you want to go that far, or not. I can't do that, yet!

#5 I like the lighting on the tower and the branches. I think that the photo could be straightened and post processed a bit more. Also, it's neat how there's perspective and the branches lead to the church but, once again, things are all centered and, I wonder if a different crop might help a little.

I think, also, that you may not have used a tripod? However, I think that you weren't thinking of any C&C when you took these. I think that you took these for the love of the day and the subjects and the moment. Am I right? Anyway, that's what shows through.

Did that help, at all?

note: Hi, Donald! I was writing this while you were writing your response; so, I'm not ignoring your suggestion for discussion. Sorry, there's no rebel in me, today!

[Shadowman]

I prefer freezing the action (or snow in this case) especially when there is a great looking structure within the frame to add contrast to the white dots.

[Suzanne]

The main point of this post was to raise a question, prompted by Gareth's first image, about pressing the shutter button whilst the snow is falling and at what speed people think you need to be shooting to get falling snow looking like falling snow.

I think there are two extremes. Go for a slow shutter and you get, ultimately, a white wall as the falling snow covers all of the space. But go slightly faster and you get 'streaks' of snow - a bit like start trails. On the other hand, go even faster and you freeze the snow and get lots and lots of white(ish) dots.

So, how would you manage it? When would you go for the slower shutter, if at all? When would you go for the faster shutter, if at all?

Discuss!

Ahhhhhhhhhh So sorry Gareth. I didn't mean to elbow in. You just got me excited thinking about snow, and since we had our first "real" snow of the season last night . . . Anyway. Sorry

I went out and took some more shots this morning, after I posted that. SEEE you inspired me.

Donald, I guess it would depend on the type of snowfall to determine the speed. Yes?

I kinda liked the way Gareth handled it, though. When the snow is really falling it's like that. You really can't see. The snow globe effect. Though I could see how you could use a longer shutter speed for other artistic interpretations.

[dragonaxe]

Katey's right! I need to work on my rule of thirds. It just doesn't seem to come naturally....plus whenever I see a photo-worthy scene, I tend to rush in and take the shot (too excitable ). And I'm the first to admit that I still haven't got to grips with post-processing, so still end up fumbling around in the dark (oooer, miss ).

I do however, think the horizon's are ok, it's just the slope of the foreground gives the impression of it not being straight...are there tips to get round that, anyone!!??

[dragonaxe]

My girls
TOO white?

Not at all!!!!
Hope you don't mind, but I wondered how it would look in B&W (and I cropped a little, and removed some of the twigs from around your girls)...just experimenting

[Katy Noelle]

....plus whenever I see a photo-worthy scene, I tend to rush in and take the shot (too excitable ). And I'm the first to admit that I still haven't got to grips with post-processing, so still end up fumbling around in the dark (oooer, miss ).

Oooooh! Groan! I know what you mean. What's worse is missing every moment because I was too busy looking through the little black box. Silly me! If I stopped and "smelled the roses" a bit, it might improve what I, actually, see.

I do however, think the horizon's are ok, it's just the slope of the foreground gives the impression of it not being straight...are there tips to get round that, anyone!!??

Hmmm! I think that it wasn't so much the horizons but a sense of the tower and roof leaning backwards a little bit in the first and last one.

Sorry, Suzy! I don't know what to say about yours. I think that I'm way too biased. I see "the girls" like a photo of family and can't judge. It must be tricky, though, with the white of the snow and the dark on the dogs.

[dragonaxe]

Hmmm! I think that it wasn't so much the horizons but a sense of the tower and roof leaning backwards a little bit in the first and last one.

you're absolutely right!! I hadn't noticed that before !!!

[Suzanne]

Not at all!!!!
Hope you don't mind, but I wondered how it would look in B&W (and I cropped a little, and removed some of the twigs from around your girls)...just experimenting

Huh, You know I never considered trying this shot in B&W. I really like it though. Thank you for trying it that way. The problem I'm having with snow is I keep wanting my shots to come out looking like a painting with colors all over the place. Blues and purples and yellows. I'm having a hard time (with snow) seeing the subtleties that a camera offers. That and being a total newb compared to all of you in technical skill. I think that;s why your #4 got me all excited about snow. I see those beautiful colors in the snow in that shot. Very cool.

[Donald]

#4 I think that, perhaps, you could have put the horizon on the lower third and "highlighted" the idea that we're small beings (on the bench ) watching a grand sky. That's just one idea. I'm sure that there's more that others will say about filters and exposure for the sky vs. land, etc. but, I'll let someone else who knows more about all that, chime in. Also, someone may mention cloning out the wire pole. I don't know if you want to go that far, or not. I can't do that, yet!

On the basis of personal preference, this is my pick of the set. Why?

The elements for a good image are all there. The foreground interest (bench). The tree line taking us around the image and into the distance. The interesting and dramatic cloud pattern.

Despite what you say in criticising your own work ("... plus whenever I see a photo-worthy scene, I tend to rush in and take the shot ..."), I think this shows you do have the eye to identify the important 'parts' of a good image and put them together: Sometimes it's like a jigsaw or a Meccano construction set - putting the right bits together in the right order to make the finished product. The more you practice the more accomplished you get at putting all the bits together. Just got to slow yourself down and ask questions about what you're looking at before you whip off the lens hood and start shooting.

I agree with Katy about the horizon line. If you had got down much lower (I recommend one of these waterproof sheets that pet shops sell to put in the boot/trunk of your car to carry your muddy pooch - it lives in the laptop pocket of my Lowepro backpack. It's big enough to put the bag on and for me to lie or kneel at the same time.), you could have got a much lower horizon and, as a result, a much greater expanse of sky, so increasing the 'scale'/drama of the image.

I also agree about the electricity pole - which means that cloning needs to be near the top of the 'to learn' list.

Finally, I would have been tempted to hang about in the cold for another 30-45 minutes, until that sun had dipped below the horizon. You wouldn't have got the blown highlight and the sky would have been more dramatic.

[Suzanne]

This also is my favorite of the bunch. Mainly because of the fantastic colours you captured in the snow, but here I have to disagree with Donald. sorry Sorry Donald. I actually like the ball of fire. It is one of the characters in your story. the bench being the main character. i think the two play off each other to tell this story of sitting to watch the sun set. They speak to each other.

I agree with both Katy and Donald that if the pole wasn't there it wouldn't distract and come between the two characters.

And I like the idea of the horizon on the lower third to show more sky (which is what this a kind of about) but. . . I don't actually mind it being towards the center. Thirds make drama. If you were going for drama then yes. But i get a quiet moment of just sitting and watching the sun go down and so having the horizon centered (creating less tension and a calmer comp) works for me.

[Donald]

but here I have to disagree with Donald.

What? WHAT? Is that allowed?

I just thought it was too far gone. But ... I see the point you're making and certainly agree that that side of the frame needs a bright counterpoint. Okay, I'll compromise. Maybe Gareth needed to wait 15 - 20 minutes instead of the 30-45 I suggested above!