Project 52 by Geoff F

The trouble with daylight moons is that they are a bit pale. I have increased the contrast and sharpness as much as I dare. Going any further looked rather unnatural.

I will have another look at working on just the blue channel though. But there is a bit of noise lurking in the background amongst the thin wispy cloud.

The daytime moon is harder to capture than you think it should be. Do you think that maybe a wider shot which included a reference point might work as well? Say, a building or a tree? I think close ups of the moon standout better at night time. But if that mist was swirling round a building and you could see the moon overhead it might work?

Cheers for now

Gary

No good, Gary, that moon was too high in the sky.

But here is the same scene from two years ago when the moon was a little lower, but still higher than would have been ideal.

Try again, I pressed Send Reply instead of Upload :mad:

http://i46.tinypic.com/25hg36e.jpg

Or from an old poor quality film camera ten years ago; a sunset of the same scene.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2z8xd7t.jpg

Interesting photos. Here we were getting the sun up in the East and the Moon in the West in the morning and I was thinking to myself that we were in night and day at the same time, but I couldn't figure out how or where to take the shot from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff F

No good, Gary, that moon was too high in the sky.

But here is the same scene from two years ago when the moon was a little lower, but still higher than would have been ideal.

---

For me anyway, that second moon image works better as it puts it into context. It still strikes me as odd how the moon is visible during the day. But, does make an evocative image as it shows that the moon and sun never go away. It's our Earth and their movements that make them visible or not.

Cheers for now

Gary

On the way to a wildlife site I made a detour to check out another potential site but never got any further after the brief morning sunshine turned cloudy once more.

These bridges cross the River Avon upstream from the old Loddiswell Station. This short railway line was constructed in the 1880s and ran from Kingsbridge to the main line at South Brent until it was closed in the 1960s.

Railway Bridge

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...9/original.jpg

1/60 F6.6 Iso 800 7D with 24-105 L lens.

Railway Bridge #2

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...0/original.jpg

1/80 F6.3 Iso 800

Road Bridge. This narrow bridge is still used.

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...2/original.jpg

1/1600 F5.6 Iso 400. I used a fast shutter speed to freeze the water.

Overflow Tunnel constructed in the side walls of one bridge.

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...1/original.jpg

1/160 F11 Iso 400. Most of this scene was in deep shadow so I used flash.

Misty river scene, looking downstream from the road bridge.

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...3/original.jpg

1/640 F5.6 Iso 400.

The railway bridges were in shadow but with bright areas above them, so I exposed for highlights and recovered the shadows during editing. There was too much movement for multiple shots, and I was leaning out over the river to avoid foliage.

With all these images, I made two raw conversions with different exposure settings then combined them with layers and masks.

I like all of these, but curious as to why you choose to freeze the water. To me #1 and 3 would be really cool with the silky smooth water movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronlane

I like all of these, but curious as to why you choose to freeze the water. To me #1 and 3 would be really cool with the silky smooth water movement.

---

It is something which I hate, Ron.

Maybe it is due to working most of my life as a fisherman but I like to see waves, surf, even river water, totally natural. :D

Photographers seem to fall into two groups over things like this. And for me, a natural real life scene should be exactly that. OK, a few tweaks are often necessary; and it is sometimes fun to do a bit of extraction and repasting of elements within an image.

Much the same goes for excessive HDR photography. Some like it while others think that if it can be noticed it has failed.

Usually more difficult to get crisp moving water than those blurred water shots though.

I can understand that. I think you have shots there that would look good either way.

I was asked to photograph the local history society committee after our last meeting. Besides me being absent, behind the camera, one guy got the dates mixed up and didn't attend. :rolleyes:

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...7/original.jpg

7D with 24-105L lens f8 Iso 200. Flash with a bit of negative compensation.

Like many such scenes it was something of a nightmare to shoot.

I moved them from their original sitting position because there was a wall full of large glass fronted photos directly behind them; and they simply didn't form a group.

This new position was really a bit too close to the curtains but I just had to get on with the shot.

I got those with spectacles to remove them; I've been caught out with that one before. One person still wore them but she was looking downward so it wasn't a problem.

But it is so difficult to get 6 unwilling people to all pose together, and still look natural. I took 4 shots before they became restless and started wandering away. None of the shots was anywhere close to being an ideal photo.

'You don't have all this fuss with a mobile phone camera; you just point it and click'! Or so I was informed.

However, I have extracted bits from 2 images and combined them, with quite a bit of cloning to try for something acceptable. Although still far from ideal.

Also this week, I've put my 2013 calendar together which involved a different 'committee'.

Picked 12 photos which I thought were the most suitable plus another 12 substitutes and took them to the 'scrutiny committee' in my local pub.

Half of my first choices were rejected. Four of the substitutes were accepted. So I had to return to my files and find another 2 photos which would be acceptable.

Most of the seascapes were rejected. 'OK for a bit of background but where is the action?'

Yes, I don't have to ask anybody's permission for what goes into my calendars; but it's always good to get other opinions on your work, and particularly from the general public instead of just other photographers.

Sometimes I see pro photographers offering simple scenes like a patch of light on a piece of still water for considerable prices and wonder what would be said if I took one into the pub and said it was my work.

I expect I would be told to go away and photograph something more interesting.

I also produce a wildlife calendar (very limited edition) but I won't ask for 'permission to produce it' because 'photographing bugs is just weird'.

Maybe I should not let members of the general public influence the way I choose the scenes which I photograph, and how I shoot.

But this sort of discussion always makes me think twice before clicking the shutter next time. And in deciding which of the 90% or more of my shots actually get ditched.

Yes, OK, I've rambled on a bit this week. :eek:

Geoff, I appreciate your "rambling". I believe there is a healthy tension between photographing the things that we like and trying to please others. And yet, I agree with you, it seems very important to get input from others. That is one of the great values of CIC. How often do we post an image and have one person tell us it just doesn't work for them and another say they like it a lot.

So perhaps the best way to deal with this tension is to take our images to the local pub, ask for input, and only let those who like our work be our friends. I think it feels better that way.

I admire your courage to agree to photograph a committee. - Cheers, Chuck

Being asked to take the shots and then behaving this way? That is some group of "friends" you have there.

As for taking them to the pub - that is a great idea. Not that I go to pubs/bars but do have my sports nights. Will try that sometime and see what kind of layman reaction I get for the nature shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobobird

Being asked to take the shots and then behaving this way? That is some group of "friends" you have there.

As for taking them to the pub - that is a great idea. Not that I go to pubs/bars but do have my sports nights. Will try that sometime and see what kind of layman reaction I get for the nature shots.

---

The chairman asked for some photos of our activities to create a photo record. What is the point of a history society if it doesn't record itself for future generations. :rolleyes:

However, after the meeting, everybody else just wanted to go home.

I find the general public react well to those 'popular and/or cuddly' creatures including birds. Also butterflies, dragonflies, even bumblebees with some people.

But other, and often more interesting species, have very limited appeal. Although there are often a few amateur entomologists around. They just keep quiet about their addiction. :eek:

And sometimes, you can start a discussion about some species when people start talking about the insects which they remember from their childhood. Are they still there in similar numbers, etc.

Incidentally, I find that the popular species are over recorded with the local official recorders; but many relatively common species rarely get mentioned. This is an area where amateur entomologists can easily do good recording work.

A bright sunny day with a foggy start today. So quite a few shots to be edited for next week's photos.

But I'm starting to ramble again . . .

I like the rambling Geoff, it is very recognizable (if that is the right word for what I mean).
First of all, photographing a group of people. No one really likes posing I think, unless there is an occasion and people are in the mood for it.
And yes, they always think that the same shots can be made with the compact camera or the smart phone. I wonder if they ever tried the flash on a compact.

And then having photographs judged by people that know you, family especially, is tough. It is funny, but when I show photos to my family they always look for those photos that appeal to them on a personal basis, not necessarily the best photos (in my opinion, that is).
So my wife will like all photos that show one of the kids, or the dogs and the rest will be ok (I am exaggerating slightly, but this is how it works basically). Photos of her are never favourites, because she is critical of how she looks (I think a lot of people have this problem actually, when they see a photo of themselves).

I think that even famous photographers might face this problem. Suppose you are into photographing male nudes in compromising positions...the general public loves your work and pays good money for it. Your mother though, always thinks that the photographs show a bit too much nude and landscapes can be so much nicer to look at.

Well, this was rambling really, but I like the ideas you put into my head. Good start of the week.

I shot this same location a few weeks ago but only had a larger lens with me then.

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...3/original.jpg

7D with 24-105 L lens 1/100 F11 Iso 200. Three bracketed shots on a tripod then manually merged with layers and masks. Auto HDR gave false colours.

And a Sunny Afternoon

The same location but from the opposite angle. Same day but 3 pm.

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...4/original.jpg

1/800 F11 Iso 400. I could have reduced the Iso but had been taking some shots in duller conditions. In fact with this shot the foreground was in light shadow so I have down a little selective brightness editing.

Not a perfect photo but it does show the location nicely.

Starting the Race

Just a quick shot which amused me.

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...5/original.jpg

1/800 F14 Iso 400

In reality, those boats are going in different directions. I saw the potential for a quick shot so just clicked when it looked about right.

During a brief break in the clouds, I visited the nearby coastal village of Hope Cove. Still a fresh chilly wind though.

This angle looks along the coast towards the village of Thurlestone.

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...0/original.jpg

1/1250 F11 Iso 400. I should have reduced the Iso but had previously been shooting where I needed a bit extra and didn't check before shooting. I did reduce it for more shots from this angle but actually preferred this one to several slightly different angles.

Another attempt at a three shot HDR. And, once again, I preferred the manual merge compared to auto merging.

Looking back towards the village from a nearby headland. Already, the clouds are forming. This was my last shot before the light declined, and before I reached the position where I wanted to try another angle.

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...1/original.jpg

1/200 F11 Iso 200

A two shot merge with different focus points. Plus some selective editing with Curves etc.

Walking back to my vehicle I noticed this post box; I'm not suggesting the village is excessively behind the times, but look at the lettering near the box top. VR stands for Queen Victoria! Recently had a fresh coat of paint though.

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...3/original.jpg

1/160 F7.1 Iso 400 handheld.

And by this time the light was fading quickly - so I gave up and went home. Will try again on a better day.

Geoff, I like the last two shots the best. The village shot is very nice - good light and you captured patterns that caused me to take time to really examine the photo. Lovely countryside.

I like the mailbox as well. It seems to me that it is the kind of shot that would work well in cloudy conditions. Perhaps even better than with more light. Thanks for sharing.

I like the others and my commenting specifically on this one is not to suggest otherwise. But this one struck me particularly and started me thinking - Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff F

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...3/original.jpg

---

Lots of people have done lots of shots of postboxes/mailboxes sort of like this and, yeh, they're okay. So why was I stopping and looking at this again ... and again?

I think the answer lies in the fact that this one has room to breath ... if you see what I mean!

Those that I can recall seeing previously have been tight in on the postbox. What this one does is how us around the edges of the structure into which the postbox is built. It's got space around it. It's shown to us in a context. It's not just a postbox. It's a postbox in its situation.

Now, I don't know what you others folks make of this idea/theory, but it struck me that that is what was making the difference for me and was making me stop to look at it. In other words ...... I like it.

Thanks for the comments.

Yes that postbox is slightly unusual, apart from it's age, in that it is positioned into the end of a dividing wall between two driveways. So I tried to show the brickwork without having too much distracting background from the houses etc.

The buildings are more modern so presumably there has been relocation here at some time.

There are a few GR (King George) boxes still around but this is the only Victorian one that I know of in the general location.

I did have a few problems with red saturation from the new paint so had to use a layer and mask during editing.

When suitable weather returns, I intend to try a few other shots around this village.

Here is one which I took a month ago from the cliff path. I don't think I have shown it before, but not certain. :rolleyes:

http://i46.tinypic.com/2lnxr2w.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff F

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...1/original.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff F

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...3/original.jpg

---

Great shots Geoff and so many. These were the ones that really grabbed me though. Great colours and light in that first shot and I just loved the mistiness in the second.