DSLRUsers.com

The last week or two of overcast stormy weather had a break yesterday, so last evening I drove the twenty mins. out to Yarrie Lake once again. I was hoping to get a sunset shot across the lake but the conditions didn't appear to be going to cooperate so I walked the banks looking for options and noticed the background light on this dead tree. Although somewhat squeezed in between the surround lake side bush which limited it's framing, it was quite moody and showed promise. The mood of the lake just before sunset was what I attempted to capture.

Interesting image Norwest, were you using a polarising filter?

As an aside, it seemed like earlier in the day than last light from the photo.

Glen wrote:Interesting image Norwest, were you using a polarising filter?


As an aside, it seemed like earlier in the day than last light from the photo.

Yes. The glare from the lake was too great without.
It was around 7pm with the sun a touch above the surrounding tree line you see in the background and right of frame. The lake is a perfect circle as it originated from a meteor crater. Looks like i didn't catch the mood if it looks earlier in the day.

There is something missing...
May be the tree shouldn't have been cropped?
The light effect and colours are interesting.

I quite like the composition light and color. What worries me is the noise at ISO100!! I believe you have been officially diffracted by Canon. Any thoughts?

Norwest I think you caught the mood, sometimes the camera through its longer exposure makes it seem like more light was there than actually was. My other thought is that the polarising filter may have been at an angle, it seems to have had greater effect on the left hand side of the photo, then again it may just be the angle of the light.

surenj wrote:I quite like the composition light and color. What worries me is the noise at ISO100!! I believe you have been officially diffracted by Canon. Any thoughts?

I wouldn't be _worried_ by the grain in the sky, and it doesn't indicate a problem with the image of itself. But it might indicate some areas you can improve your technique.

Firstly the grain is being accentuated by the JPEG compression in the file we're seeing. It will be different in the original.

Am I right in assuming that this photo was taken with the 24-105mm/4 @24mm? There is a small amount of chromatic aberration (CA) visible here (e.g. some red fringing in the upper left). You're saved slightly here by using a 50D: a full-frame camera will see worse areas of this lens' performance. If you're shooting RAW and using Adobe Camera Raw (in Lightroom or in Photoshop: recent versions of Elements support the 50D's RAW files) you can easily fix this with the Lens Correction controls (doing it in ACR on a JPEG file or later via Photoshop's Lens Correction filter is not as effective) so this should be an easy problem to remove. Most lenses have SOME level of CA: the 24-105mm @ 24mm definitely does.

You've stopped your lens all the way down to f/22. Why did you do this? With the tiny pixel size of the 50D you're well into the arena of diffraction softening your image, which is a trade-off between getting greater depth-of-field and losing acuity across the entire frame. I would hesitate to stop the lens down beyond f/11 or f/16 at the most on this camera for most shots.

There is "noise" in every image, even ones taken at ISO 100. However in those it will only be in the "shadows" of the image, and if your images are well-exposed and well-processed it shouldn't be prominent unless you want it to be.
If you brighten the darker areas of your image you will make the "noise" more visible. I put "noise" in quotes as sometimes it's not actually noise: sometimes the pixel values really did vary by +-1, and by brightening things the variations become more extreme.
Note that shooting in JPEG does impose extra limits here: 8-bit (0-255) JPEGs vs 14-bit (0-16383) RAWs give the RAW processor room to make adjustments without these issues being as obvious. Also the JPEG file from the camera will have some JPEG compression: usually this isn't a problem if you're shooting Large Fine JPEGs, but if you start to do big processing on the image it can still become an issue.


Composition-wise I'm not sure about this crop. I keep thinking that either wider or narrower could produce a stronger image: the tree definitely feels "chopped". As we look up the trunk we start to get to interesting branches and then we hit the edge of the frame.

Norwest I think you caught the mood, sometimes the camera through its longer exposure makes it seem like more light was there than actually was. My other thought is that the polarising filter may have been at an angle, it seems to have had greater effect on the left hand side of the photo, then again it may just be the angle of the light.

Glen, it's a CP and i keep my eye on what it's doing. I played with it trying to get the light as even as possible across the frame but that's the best I could come up with. Looking back over the batch, I didn't have the same problem 30 mins beforehand when the sun was higher with less glare from the horizon.

surenj wrote:I quite like the composition light and color. What worries me is the noise at ISO100!! I believe you have been officially diffracted by Canon. Any thoughts?

The worry is likely in my processing eyesight, surenj.
This is the original shot, straight from the camera and reduced for web, only. BTW...it was the widest frame i could get without including adjacent trees and shrubs. It was quite 'squeezey'.

Thanks for the comments Dave.
Yes, it is the 24-105 F4. I used F22 for one reason and one reason only. No ND filters with me and I wanted as slow a shutter speed as possible in an attempt to lesson the sharp appearance of a slight wake/wave on the water (can be seen in the shot and calm water was what I was after) caused by a very late ski boat and skier that was going past each 10 mins. Outback and water skiers sounds like an oxymoron.
It was just an improvised stopgap measure that helped a little with one problem at the expense of another.

Agree the tree looks chopped and the light on the upper branches had highlights I wanted catch against the darkening sky, but I'm afraid I had to take what was on offer as adjacent tree clutter preventing a wider composition.
Chainsaw next trip? Only kidding

norwest wrote:Chainsaw next trip?

For the skiers, of course

gstark wrote:

norwest wrote:Chainsaw next trip?

For the skiers, of course

I didn't have the problem of skiers before xmas when the lake was a big dust bowl. The water seems to of attracted them, along with the mosquitoes.

I agree the noise is an image in the 1st example, possibly due to the levels being pushed from an under-exposed image, I think that's also why there's such a great balance of light in the sky.
The 2nd is not as noisy, but there are still a couple of little dust bunnies that need tidying, and with reducing the noise it also looks a little soft, could use some sharpening.
My thoughts anyhow. As far as composition etc goes, I like it. I especially like the rich blue colour in the sky.

tasadam wrote:I agree the noise is an image in the 1st example, possibly due to the levels being pushed from an under-exposed image, I think that's also why there's such a great balance of light in the sky.
The 2nd is not as noisy, but there are still a couple of little dust bunnies that need tidying, and with reducing the noise it also looks a little soft, could use some sharpening.
My thoughts anyhow. As far as composition etc goes, I like it. I especially like the rich blue colour in the sky.

The second shot hasn't been touched before or after the size reduction for web posting. It was posted to display the noise in the first was the fault of my processing. You will have to point out the dust bunnies as my eyes aren't what they once were.
Thanks for the comments, tasadam.