Part 2, On a dark and foggy nightModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Part 2, On a dark and foggy nightHere are the images that I think many of the comments on the original thread, seemed to want. This shot was taken within 30 seconds of the shot in the first thread.
The original was a NEF that I ran through Capture with a color NR setting of 2 and sharpness of 5, with the rest of the settings being as they were in the camera saved to a JPG. The first, is basically unedited, except for cloning out garbage, resizing and sharpening for the web. No other NR was done. Nikon D70 ,Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D AF 1/6s f/7.1 at 50.0mm ISO 1600 on window pod This one was colorbalanced warmer and then slightly desaturated, 30%, to get the sepia tone look. All other editing was same as the first. For comparison, here's the shot originally posted in the first thread. FWIW, I still like the first shot the best. I think the POV has a distinctly different feel, accentuating the foggy, spooky feeling that I wanted out of the image. But, I should clone out the bright white building to the right of the car, as I did in the new shots. So, I've got my sandbags placed and am ready for incoming. my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/
Mmmmm......... they are both excellent but I like the first one as it shows the still of the night fog a lot better and gives a more honest feel to a dark and wet night
big pix Cheers ....bp....
Difference between a good street photographer and a great street photographer.... Removing objects that do not belong... happy for the comments, but .....Please DO NOT edit my image..... http://bigpix.smugmug.com Forever changing
O.K Private Pierce
I like this last one at the bottom the the page ( is this the 1st ) If it is Thats the Keeper Really nice. Mic.
I like the second (middle) image for composition. The difference in the mist/fog is suprising though, did the mist/fog actually move away/disperse or is it because of some PP, or the angle of the shot affecting exposure etc?
Really like the second one, but seems to have less spooky eerie feeling without the mist of the original (third image)... Great images though, really captured a sense of mood... Aka Andrew
hehe your going to hate me but i think that using in camera nr would help but i do prefer this image over the last.
it just goes to show that real photographers are willing to improve and return to the scene to get the shot no matter how many times it takes. i also would say that when you do plan to do such as shoot that your take a whole roll or a couple of shots and experiment with the scene you never know that the one you didn't initally planned worked out better than you planned shot, which your done here. KEEPER SHOT Life's pretty straight without drifting
http://www.puredrift.com
Thanks for the comments, guys.
Big Pix and Mic are obviously appreciative of the finer photos of the eerie and supernatural environs. Mudder, the fog was moving that night, as if it were alive. In the 30 second difference between these photos, the more dense part had moved over 100ft farther away from my position. Redline, your comment about using in-camera NR is interesting. I've always had it turned off, so don't know what benefits it might have for shots such as these. The fog masked a lot of the monochrome noise and the color noise wasn't nearly as bad as I've seen in some of my other shots with such high contrast. my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/
Previous topic • Next topic
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|