I had 7 great years working in the Republic of Ireland. The photographic opportunities were fantastic - especially in landscapes. Ireland is wet! It is also very green. Because of the peaty soils there are great reds oranges greens to be found. I thought I could share a few misty early morning shots taken in the Sally Gap in the Wicklow Hills just south and very slightly west of Dublin.
Feel free to comment
In photography, the smallest thing can be a great subject. The little human detail can become a leitmotiv.
Very nice shots Rolf; the peat certainly colours the water, and as you say, Ireland is a green country. Not many years ago I spent a holiday on Lough Erne in the North. A bit disconcerting to see the military helicopter patrolling daily. The hire boat was a superb craft. - Peter
These are good compositions, Rolf, and they pleasantly portray the colours of autumn effectively. Their common detractor for me is the glare of the sky. The scenes have a wide dynamic range, so the good exposure for the ground has produced skies close to pure white (RGB 255). So if they were mine, I would try to tone down the skies (towards RGB 200) during image post processing. (Just my opinions, of course.)
Cheers.
Philip
(This post was last modified: Nov 20, 2014, 19:31 by MrB.)
(Nov 20, 2014, 19:27)MrB Wrote: These are good compositions, Rolf, and they pleasantly portray the colours of autumn effectively. Their common detractor for me is the glare of the sky. The scenes have a wide dynamic range, so the good exposure for the ground has produced skies close to pure white (RGB 255). So if they were mine, I would try to tone down the skies (towards RGB 200) during image post processing. (Just my opinions, of course.)
Cheers.
Philip
Hi Philip
Thanks for the comment. Sadly there is no "sky" The fog was down to just below the treetops and covered the whole of the hills that day all the way back to Dublin some hour away. The only way to get sky would be to import it ... trouble with that is a blue sky or clouds would look a little odd on an otherwise 10/10ths fogbound environment. I did expose for the landscape as there was no sky to worry about. There is no post processing or cropping. All I have done is to compress the pics for this site to be able to accept. I do recall not even bothering with a CP as there was nothing above that had any definition to try to tease out sadly. The flat, but none the less bright light I thought was very soft and gave a really nice tone to the landscape so I thought the time taken for the shots was worth it. If the day was bright sun and the sky was blown out I would understand the detraction... I too would be bothered by it. I accept the sky as it is because that is what was there to be recorded. Still, a constructive comment for which I am grateful. Thank you.
In photography, the smallest thing can be a great subject. The little human detail can become a leitmotiv.
(Nov 20, 2014, 17:17)Plantsman Wrote: Very nice shots Rolf; the peat certainly colours the water, and as you say, Ireland is a green country. Not many years ago I spent a holiday on Lough Erne in the North. A bit disconcerting to see the military helicopter patrolling daily. The hire boat was a superb craft. - Peter
Hi Peter
Thank you for your comment. A few years ago... I might have been in the Helo...looking at you in your boat through a X7 scope :-) I love Ireland... the people the beer(I did my best to keep the Beamish and Crawford Brewery in business single handedly!) the whole pace of life is so very different and the landscapes and cityscapes are brilliant. I think if I was not in Canada I would retire to the south - county Cork and head for Schull or Bantry. If you get back there try Bantry... seascapes and wild rugged cliffs... the stuff of movies!
In photography, the smallest thing can be a great subject. The little human detail can become a leitmotiv.
Rolf, the use of the word "sky" in the context of a photo is intended to mean the region of the image that is above the visible horizon, i.e. above the ground (or water) and above the things on the ground (or water).
In that context, I have merely commented that the skies in these photos are too bright - too close to the brightest white that we can display, RGB 255. A foggy sky will appear bright relative to the ground, but it is hard to believe that it would be as white as the fluffy white cumulus clouds reflecting the sun on a clear sunny day. And I have neither suggested, nor even implied, that the skies should be replaced by imported blue or cloudy skies - of course that would look wrong and be wrong.
The bright skies in these shots are the result not of your photography but of the limitations of the technology - the camera has correctly exposed the colourful ground scenes but over-cooked the skies so that, in my opinion, the former look good but the latter need toning down in PP.
(Nov 21, 2014, 04:27)MrB Wrote: Rolf, the use of the word "sky" in the context of a photo is intended to mean the region of the image that is above the visible horizon, i.e. above the ground (or water) and above the things on the ground (or water).
In that context, I have merely commented that the skies in these photos are too bright - too close to the brightest white that we can display, RGB 255. A foggy sky will appear bright relative to the ground, but it is hard to believe that it would be as white as the fluffy white cumulus clouds reflecting the sun on a clear sunny day. And I have neither suggested, nor even implied, that the skies should be replaced by imported blue or cloudy skies - of course that would look wrong and be wrong.
The bright skies in these shots are the result not of your photography but of the limitations of the technology - the camera has correctly exposed the colourful ground scenes but over-cooked the skies so that, in my opinion, the former look good but the latter need toning down in PP.
Cheers.
Philip
Hi Philip!
I do understand and we are basically arguing the same point... The sky area is bright - I agree.... the sun was out there and the day was bright but completely fog bound giving the monotone white. I have tried to reduce the bright white but the resultant grey looks odd in the rest of the contextual elements of the image. I try very hard not to manipulate an image... being a little old school and take photo's as a record of what I saw and wanted to keep rather than be "artistic" with elemental composition and to impress others with expertise in the operation of a software programme. I have LR5.7 and use it occasionally if I have had to over expose to get a shot and can then work with the image later. I feel you understand what you are talking about and if you have any suggestions for me I would be glad to accept. Thanks for taking the time to respond... I appreciate it. Have a great day!
In photography, the smallest thing can be a great subject. The little human detail can become a leitmotiv.
Hi Philip
Here are a few more taken on the same day... The shots were taken for the barren landscape, the mist and the strong autumnal colours. I like the water rivulets that abound too that give rise to the mosses and algae on the rocks. I can spend hours in these locations shooting water and small waterfalls. The first shot, I have tried to reduce the overall white of the fog in the sky area... not sure it works though... It really was a day that needed sun glasses or get eye strain. Anyway, again, appreciate your comment and suggestions for improvement.
In photography, the smallest thing can be a great subject. The little human detail can become a leitmotiv.
(Nov 21, 2014, 09:48)Rolf Wrote: I try very hard not to manipulate an image... being a little old school and take photo's as a record of what I saw and wanted to keep rather than be "artistic" with elemental composition and to impress others with expertise in the operation of a software programme. I have LR5.7 and use it occasionally if I have had to over expose to get a shot and can then work with the image later. I feel you understand what you are talking about and if you have any suggestions for me I would be glad to accept. Thanks for taking the time to respond... I appreciate it. Have a great day!
I have often read or heard a similar viewpoint expressed by some photographers on the Web or at the photo club. However the simple fact is, Rolf, that cameras cannot reproduce "what we see". As I suggested earlier, that is not necessarily due to our skills being limited. Rather it is so because our normal vision far exceeds the capabilities of our technology in almost all the sorts of scenes we like to view and photograph.
Your latest batch of photos here shows a good example of the technology's limitations. They are lovely photos of a pleasant and interesting location. However, anyone who was there at the time would have seen much more in the shadow areas of those scenes. The camera will have recorded some of the details in the very dark places, but our display devices (screen and print) cannot show them without further help.
That is an example of where the software technology needs to be utilised, but not to "impress others with our expertise in using a software program". In this case, it is the desirable aim to lift the tones in the shadow areas, so that they become visible on our screens or in our prints, and make the photos appear much more like what we would really see.
Processing images has always been as important to photography as has capturing the images. In former eras, respected photographers (such as Ansel Adams) spent many hours refining their photos by using darkroom processing equipment and techniques. In modern times, the darkroom is now the computer and its software.
Some photographers capture Raw image files and do all the processing on a computer. My choice is to make use of the camera's computer and software (the "firmware") in an attempt to get the best JPEG images it will give. However, I find that there is rarely an image from the camera that cannot be improved (with regard to its realism and/or artistic merit) by applying some subtle adjustments in software on a computer.
