DSLRUsers.com

Yesterday afternoon I went out with my mate "mattyshea" and we got some images. It wasn't the best conditions at all as at first once we got out of the car to walk to the location it started raining really heavy and we wouldn't even be able to get out cameras out of our bags without them getting drenched. So we walked back and waited for it to soften and dry out clothes hehe. Eventually it got a bit better but was still raining throughout but I had a shopping bag on my camera, lowepro waterproof cover on my vertex 200 and a umbrella although I still got drenched. Here are two images that I got before we had enough. There wasn't really a sunset as the rain clouds blocked all the light out but we made the most of what we had available.

Critiques are very welcome.

I used Autopano Giga 2.5 (aim54x recommendation) to merg the images into a pano and it worked really well. Only thing was there was a lot of noise in the image. Not sure if this was because I used the B+W 77 119 ND 3.0 or all the rain or the long 74 second exposure for each image. Anyone know why? Saved it as a 16 bit TIFF 300DPI.

CameraNikon -D90
Lens - 18.0-200.0 mm f/3.5-5.6
Filter - B+W 77 119 ND 3.0
Exposure - 74
Aperture - f/9.0
Focal Length - 18 mm
ISO Speed - 250



This was another long exposure and colour wasn't doing it for me so I converted it to black and white and I think it works well.

CameraNikon - D90
Lens - 18.0-200.0 mm f/3.5-5.6
Filter - B+W 77 119 ND 3.0
Exposure - 135
Aperture - f/9.0
Focal Length - 34 mm
ISO Speed - 250



We also went out for a sunrise shoot this morning but I'm over my monthly flickr upload so I will have them up on the 1st of May.

Cheers
Chris

The first image is quite nice and that location has alot of potential, I think the stormy day has helped you in this case. pano was a good choice and the exposure was correctly chosen to stitch the images.

The more I look at it, the more I like it, did you do much processing on it? The reason for asking is to establish whether pushing it a bit further might compliment the scene?

Nonetheless I think its a good composition and that is the fundamental key.

The second image does not rock my world, however the BW conversion does give it some redeeming qualities in my books. My first impression was, its a photo of the effect rather than a photo with an effect to compliement the scene, however as mentioned teh BW does give it a bit extra. This image may work very well in a triptych?

hth

biggerry wrote:The first image is quite nice and that location has alot of potential, I think the stormy day has helped you in this case. pano was a good choice and the exposure was correctly chosen to stitch the images.
The more I look at it, the more I like it, did you do much processing on it? The reason for asking is to establish whether pushing it a bit further might compliment the scene?
Nonetheless I think its a good composition and that is the fundamental key.

The second image does not rock my world, however the BW conversion does give it some redeeming qualities in my books. My first impression was, its a photo of the effect rather than a photo with an effect to compliement the scene, however as mentioned teh BW does give it a bit extra. This image may work very well in a triptych?

Thanks Gerry. Yeah it's a great location and I will have to go visit it again soon. Do you think it's worth getting up for a sunrise?

I did do some post processing on it as I didn't want to take my grads out in the rain and wind and would also take too long to do exposure blending so I just selected the sky in photoshop and darkened it and the general sharpening, noise reduction and vibrance boost. I'm just not happy with the noise in the image and not sure where it has come from as I haven't done any extreme adjustments, iso wasn't high and the exposure wasn't that long.

Yeah the second image is nothing great but I like the simplicity of it. Plus I only had time to get two compositions all together.

Thanks for the great advice
Chris

To add to what Gerry has said...

It's always hard to 'see' these pano images at this size.

I think it's a clever compo which nicely frames the scene.

What I am not sure is about the sharpness and overall tones. I am not sure what the main subject is. I assumed it's the large rocks but I can't see much detail at this size. (at your end this may be ok) The color of the trees and grass overpower the main subject. The white levels could be improved.

Perhaps BW conversion and inclusion of more sky(if possible) would be reasonable to try.

Lastly do you have any with angry seas to compare. Perhaps the jaggedness of the rocks may be enhanced by rough seas?

The noise may be due to ISO 250 and the long exposure. If you use liveview too much, theoretically it can increase noise. The other reason for noise is underexposure. Certain cameras are more forgiving in this than others. I know mine punishes heavily on this regard.

surenj wrote:To add to what Gerry has said...

It's always hard to 'see' these pano images at this size.

I think it's a clever compo which nicely frames the scene.

What I am not sure is about the sharpness and overall tones. I am not sure what the main subject is. I assumed it's the large rocks but I can't see much detail at this size. (at your end this may be ok) The color of the trees and grass overpower the main subject. The white levels could be improved.

Perhaps BW conversion and inclusion of more sky(if possible) would be reasonable to try.

Lastly do you have any with angry seas to compare. Perhaps the jaggedness of the rocks may be enhanced by rough seas?

The noise may be due to ISO 250 and the long exposure. If you use liveview too much, theoretically it can increase noise. The other reason for noise is underexposure. Certain cameras are more forgiving in this than others. I know mine punishes heavily on this regard.

Yeah it sucks having to compress panoramas for internet usage.
The quarry rocks were intended for the main subject. As they lead the eyes into the distance. The detail in the full res image on the rocks is good. What could be improved about the white levels?

This is cropped to the edge so I can't get anymore sky. Bit hard to get perspective but these rocks are massive, like 15-20 meters tall and the rock faces in the distances are even bigger. I tried black and white but I prefer colour for this image.

I didn't have any images this time showing the rough surf but the surf wasn't big anyway although I have few from a year ago I took shown below:





Yeah the noise could be from using ISO 250 and the long exposure multiplying the effect.

Thanks Surenj for the great advice and tips
Chris

Thanks for the extra info and photos.

dervish16 wrote:What could be improved about the white levels?

In PS (OR LR) I set the whitepoint using the eyedropper to select the spray which I assume would be white in this scene. In this case, it would compress the overall tonality and make it more contrasty I reckon. Essentially it's 'correcting' whitebalance as well as overall tonality.

Like so, in this picture I took out the purple cast on the right upper which distracts from the overall color scheme. [Yes I added some sky so you can see how it looks]

surenj wrote:In PS (OR LR) I set the whitepoint using the eyedropper to select the spray which I assume would be white in this scene.

Yeah I do that but forget if I did it for this image.

Did you take out the purple cast in the clouds by just changing the whitepoint? I have to admit it looks better with more sky but can't change it now unless I do some cloning like you but would rather keep it natural.

Thanks for the edit.

surenj wrote:In PS (OR LR) I set the whitepoint using the eyedropper to select the spray which I assume would be white in this scene.

Actually I didn't do that as after I combined the image (not in photoshop) I brought it in and I didn't know where the whitepoint button is in photoshop as I usually do it in camera raw.

dervish16 wrote:Did you take out the purple cast in the clouds by just changing the whitepoint?

No changing the white point accentuated it so I desaturated the purple (only) on hue saturation layer.

surenj wrote:No changing the white point accentuated it so I desaturated the purple (only) on hue saturation layer.

I took the pano into lightroom and fixed the white balance and it made the sea look much better but as you said it accentuated the sky so reducing the hue saturation for purple would be the easiest way but I selected the sky and added yellow to reduce the purple. I think the sky is so pruple as I had a B+W 77 110 ND 3.0 and a long exposure so there was a colour cast from the filter.


Thanks for the good tip Surenj

That second series set is quite nice, the reworked pano by suren also is an improvement in my eyes.

I am really liking the looks of this location, I have driven past there heaps and never realised the goldmine of opportunties there.

I am heading down that way in mid may (22nd from memory) and will definitely try and get there for a sunrise session. Might make it a session if anyone else is keen.

biggerry wrote:I am heading down that way in mid may (22nd from memory) and will definitely try and get there for a sunrise session. Might make it a session if anyone else is keen.

You can count me in for a sunrise session. Bit of a trek for me but have to drive a whole 5 minutes Inform me of the date once you know. Mattyshea might come too if he isn't up at uni in Newcastle.