DSLRUsers.com

Thanks Gerry for organising this meet. The 0300 wake-up time made the rest of my day pretty much useless. We did have a couple of nice coffees at Patrick's however then I went home to promptly fall asleep.

We took the scenic route to the location. It's a small miracle that we didn't get bitten by snakes, spiders or fall off a cliff.

Thanks Ray for lending me the Lee Bigstoppa. It causes a blue + GREEN cast and makes post processing very challenging. There are no free lunches I guess. Overall I feel that the warm cast produced by the BW Bigstoppa is slightly easier to 'correct' as residual warmth can be hidden in the image itself...

General comments and criticisms are welcome.

I am particularly keen to hear your thoughts on these two compositions. Gerry and I was trying to incorporate the greenery into the overall feel.







Slight deviation from the usual color


Bridge with movement


Star studded sky taken with a NON-astro version of the 60D

Hi Suren - I'm still jealous I wasn't able to make it

Of #1 & 2 I like the first for the closer flower in the bottom left and yours are much more visible than in Gerry's - however in #1 the bridge is falling into the ocean and I certainly wouldn't want to be driving over it - #2 is better corrected but not as nice a compo

#3 is quite nice - needs the hole plugged like on Gerry's - it has some nice range of tones and the sky is a nice smooth softness. I reckon it might be a little too light on the rocks at the bottom (esp in the middle)

#4 is not exactly doing it for me - not sure why - it's got something but perhaps not enough. Maybe if that car was going the other way so it was larger or perhaps if it was a little more to the right? not sure

Thanks for braving the conditions Suren!

surenj wrote:We did have a couple of nice coffees at Patrick's however then I went home to promptly fall asleep.

lol, it was awesome, i was buzzing until 10 that night...then crashed..

surenj wrote:I am particularly keen to hear your thoughts on these two compositions. Gerry and I was trying to incorporate the greenery into the overall feel.

aaahh yes, the flower, I prefer the the second image mainly due to he better position of teh flower, however the reduction in size is unfortunate, having the flower this far out of the main area of the frame tends to draw my eye away at a detriment to the overall image, i think, and possibly this was impossible, but getting that flower turned more to place it further to the thirds intersection may have helped immensely, in any case your version is better than mine..

surenj wrote:Slight deviation from the usual color

nice, adjustment of said horizon and its a keeper..the funny hole does not bother me too much.

surenj wrote:Bridge with movement

nup, its hard to impress with shots of the bridge from the walkway for me, it feels like its all been done before..that said the little movement does help, maybe twice as much movement may have been better? just thinking aloud here..

astro image is ok, but i think needs more colour and definition on the milkyway...

I think we need a call to do some dedicated astro stuff....

Those monochrome images work nicely. I love the dramatic feel of #4

#4 get my vote as well Suren.... provided you fix the peep hole . Comp is tops although I would like to see more light on the rocky outcrop to the right..bit too dominant as it is....
Yet to be convinced about the suitability of the green weed as a foreground element in this location. In my mind they built the bridge due to the rugged unstable cliff face and so I reckon the rocks provide a more complementary foreground subject rather than the weed which softens the whole scene too much. That's why I prefer the B&W composition.

Noticed the sky is a bit blocky in #2...did you do any healing/cloning brush work in that compared to #1 which is not as affected.
And as Rodney has pointed out, you need to take the twist out of the bridge..I had to correct the same issue in mine
No suitable red sky pics?

Remorhaz wrote:I like the first for the closer flower in the bottom left and yours are much more visible than in Gerry's

That's because I asked the flower to pose for me.

Remorhaz wrote:bridge is falling

I might have to correct the distortion a little... How do you like this?

Remorhaz wrote:#4 is not exactly doing it for me - not sure why - it's got something but perhaps not enough. Maybe if that car was going the other way so it was larger or perhaps if it was a little more to the right? not sure

biggerry wrote:its hard to impress with shots of the bridge from the walkway for me, it feels like its all been done before..that said the little movement does help, maybe twice as much movement may have been better? just thinking aloud here..

Agree. I just wanted a shot to remember the bridge. I don't have any previous shots of the bridge. This is the only way I thought I thought I could enhance it at the time. Also this is the only shot I kept.
Infact, this particular shoot was unique in that I kept 15 shots!! Usually it's no more than 8-10.

Jenno wrote:No suitable red sky pics?

Just one. I had to wait ages as I missed the first set of waves.

Jenno wrote:Noticed the sky is a bit blocky in #2.

Yep. I had the polariser turned wrong! It's not easy to get rid of as I don't have any U point technology.

Jenno wrote:Yet to be convinced about the suitability of the green weed as a foreground element in this location. In my mind they built the bridge due to the rugged unstable cliff face and so I reckon the rocks provide a more complementary foreground subject rather than the weed which softens the whole scene too much. That's why I prefer the B&W composition.

Fair call Ray. I think you bring out a valid point to consider in all landscape compositions. Although I vaguely knew about the context, I wasn't astute enough to pick on this when I thought...Gee this flower might look nice in the foreground.

I guess you would think this is nice and soft as well?

biggerry wrote:I think we need a call to do some dedicated astro stuff....

Perhaps. It's a fair commitment as if it's not a clear night, then what? Lightpaint?? Perhaps we need to choose location very carefully so that the fall back plan is also reasonable. Perhaps not too far from Sydney? Or maybe pick very far and we will camp. Preferably not in cold conditions; with nice toilets.

Lastly, am I supposed to get star movement at 30 seconds?

surenj wrote:I might have to correct the distortion a little... How do you like this?

Actually I don't mind where this is heading - if the bridge came from the top right corner and was even more twisty it might be neat

I guess you would think this is nice and soft as well?

I actually quite like this one

Lastly, am I supposed to get star movement at 30 seconds?

It depends on focal length and whether you're pointing at the pole or away but essentially yes There's some formula somewhere for calculating it.

surenj wrote:
Infact, this particular shoot was unique in that I kept 15 shots!! Usually it's no more than 8-10.

lol. you are the cull nazi.

surenj wrote: Jenno wrote:No suitable red sky pics?
Just one. I had to wait ages as I missed the first set of waves.

I like this one, I disregarded these ones but yours looks quite attractive.

surenj wrote:I guess you would think this is nice and soft as well?

thats nice too and probably the closest i ave seen to teh true reds that morning. I would like to have seen this shot from lower to get the grass silhouetted more, the curve of the bridge works nicely here, good spot.

surenj wrote:Perhaps. It's a fair commitment as if it's not a clear night, then what? Lightpaint?? Perhaps we need to choose location very carefully so that the fall back plan is also reasonable. Perhaps not too far from Sydney? Or maybe pick very far and we will camp. Preferably not in cold conditions; with nice toilets.

ha, plenty of top spots to camp, with showers, just a matter of which direction you want to go! Maybe this is something to consider, i would probably have to bring the chaos though

surenj wrote:Lastly, am I supposed to get star movement at 30 seconds?

yes. even at 11mm you can just notice the movement. When i did teh moon with the 300 +1.7 the shutter needed to be around a second or under, other wise there was noticeable blur. As Rodney mentioned, its a function of focal length.