Fisher Photography - Previously VP_S_Wagon  

vp_s_wagon

Major,
ROFL!
Cheers, I was happy with that one.

Ghetto,
I kinda like the patches. They add a little something different in the sky as oppsed to just plain red sunset.
Thanks for the feedback.

Harry

Nickle

I like the patches too. Give depth. Looks quality....

Nicoooolllllleee

parko

The last two shots look fantastic.

Loving the vivid yellows above the fragmented clouds in the first one and the second is dreamy.

Hard to tell exactly what you're looking at - the clouds look like sheets of... fluffyness.

schMick

They're both well done.

Personally, I think that the first one either could do wiht a touch more left on the bottom, and less on the top, just to balance it a little more.

I also agree with both Nicole & GP about the 2nd one. I can live with the bits at the top - the colour increases further down and the vertical lines still draw the eye through; but again, instead of cropping the top like GP suggested, I'd play around with cropping the bottom more or covering up the highlights.

But, I like what you've managed to do generally with those 2. Using the smaller apertures has really allowed great colour to be captured. You were in a good place at a good time. It shows your dedication.

- Mick

vp_s_wagon

I agree with u on leaving more on the bottom. I cropped it out because I was not in the world's best loaction. I had a whole lot of trees and houses in the way. Not to mention a tipod that is only 10cm high (can't find my quick release for the big one) so the bottom of the shot, although adding DOF, was not very nice to look at.
I am considering balancing it by cropping some of the top out.

Í hadn't noticed the highlights down the bottom of the 2nd one, I'll take care of them. Cheers for pointing that out.

I love small apertures for long exposure. Especially with the D80 (compared with the D50) I can do heaps of exposure, get all the colors I want and not worry about noise (provided I keep it below about ISO 640-800)

Thanks for the feedback
Harry

schMick

#1 I know. It's irritating when you have to crop *** out and it's just a bit much and unbalances. You could also try cropping the bottom even more to the bottom of bridge 1. Crop as much off the top and you could end up with a much better pano. Depends on your taste.

#2 The other alternative is to keep the highlights and see if there's any more detail in the shadows on the bottom. Bring out more detail for the eye to wander around. I'm assuming that might be tricky though. Keeping to the shilouette is probably best.

Up to you! Post what you end up with...

vp_s_wagon

I could not get a good result with the silhouettes, the panorama looks a bit better though. Heaps less static space in it with this crop.

here it is:

Harry

Moment

Ahhh nice one, definately a far better shot now i reckon. Awesome colors.

Just out of interest, what did you focus on?

vp_s_wagon

Lol, nothing in particular. I used F.32 so pretty much everything is in focus. I put the focus dot on the horizon in the centre somewhere. Probably a crane. I think it does lack focal point but I feel that the hole in the sky acts as a bit of an eye-catcher for this shot.
It is actually an HDR shot but I used RAW edits, not 2 shots because my tripod was out of action so the bottom half is pretty dodgy quality.
I can't believe noone picked up on the HDR! I'm pretty proud of that

Moment

well the reason i asked about the focus point, is that you should focus at something not at infinity rather something like the bridge in the foreground, cos everything behind it will be in focus. It just seems like most of the foreground is softish.

When you say HDR did you just merge 2 exposures to get the correct exposure, or did you use the CS2 "merge to HDR option"

vp_s_wagon

The foreground is soft as shit. It pisses me off.

My HDR on that was shithouse.
I used 2 layers and the eraser

Harry

Moment

lol mate, thats not HDR thats just merging 2 exposures but its a similar principle.

next time you should focus on the foreground, and let the small apature bring the background into focus. Just cos you have a small apature doesn't mean everything is goign to be in focus. Its all to do with optical physics, but i think it would work alot better that way.

not taking away from your shot, as the colors are awesome!

vp_s_wagon

I know it's not true HDR but it works all the same
If I had my proper tripod I would have done a proper HDR with 3 shots and 3 sharp focal points. One close, one near the bridges and one on the horizon.
I might try one tonight.

Harry

Moment

i think your missing my point....

I was saying, as the focus point is probably off to infinity, its going to be really tough to get the foreground in focus, even with a small apature.

Its alot easier to get the background in focus, when you've focused on the foreground with a small apature

dj_brad_k

loving the new few shots harry, will be good to see the quality of the shots when you can get out properly.

now hurry up

tyler

Nickle

Moment, I think he means he's actually going out tonight to take more photos so he can focus on the foreground like u said...

Nicole

vp_s_wagon

I got it. I was adding to it. I agree with u, I was just saying that in an ideal world I would do that as well as the two other exposures with different focus points.
I will be doing some more shots tonight. Don't know where yet. Might do the same spot again.

Harry

Rainey

Harry firstly, nice shot! I was gonna suggest that you must have used some sort of HDR effect in order to achieve some detail in the terrain without having as severely blown sky (expecially in the white 'hole'). Your HDR technique is exactly as I do it too, I feel like you have more control if you do it yourself using layers in photoshop. HDR programs normally leave a lot to be desired.

vp_s_wagon

Some new shots from last night with the D80...
What do u think??

1. 2. 3.

Those Fireworks were a fluke! I had no idea they were going to be there... I just so happened to be in the right place at the right time.

4. 5. 6.
7.

C&C welcomed as always.

Harry

Nickle

That's one hell of a fluke! Lol u definately had a good night. In the third one theres a little bit of jetty on the water over to the left tho which doesn't look quite right. Not a big deal...

I love the grunge ones. Did u do a bit more photoshopping with these?? The last two look like they have a grain filter over them. It really suits it. And the 5th shot with the door looks almost warped. What lens were u using?? Was it ur 18-200?

Also love #4. The composition is great, and the plastic bag in the foreground adds to the run-down old bum house look

Nicole

vp_s_wagon

Oh yeh, I didn't even notice that Jetty. Thanks.
I didn't do anthing, except for a slight desat... Shot at ISO 2500 That'd be the "Grain Filter"
The ole' 18-200 is subject to a bit of distortion Normally I set photoshop to get rid of it but I kinda like it in this shot so I left it.

Overall I was pretty happy with the night. The funniest thing that happened was when I got a parking fine which the guy screwed up. He gave me a fine 35 mins before my ticket expired! The best bit is that he even wrote the correct times on the fine, so it contradicts itself!
Have a Look:


Harry

Rainey

Harry, looks underexposed to me.

Seriously, what a dirty flange to have gotten that wrong, what was he thinking!

Nickle

Well the fact that it was only that grainy at ISO 2500 is awesome. But I was actually thinking it looks really effective on those particular photos!

And I was also thinking the distortion looked good. But if you didnt want any, try using it at about 60mm - 80mm. I'm told that's the best place to shoot for less distortion. I'm not sure if that goes with that particular lens tho.

And that ticket... WTF? Send it back to them with a hell abusive notice and see what they say! LOL!

Nicole

vp_s_wagon

I actually sharpened it slightly (just RAW processor sharpen) because I sorta like the grain too. mmm D80 ISO noise
I was only 1 metre from the door so 60-80mm would be the door handle
Like I said, PS gets rid of it for me. Just so u don't think the warping is chronic on it THE BOTTOM OF THE PIPE HAS A MARK ON IT, IT IS NOT BENT... LOOK CLOSLER!
I talked to the guy who gave me the ticket and he just pissed himself lauging and tore up the record of it so I wont get it

parko

Lovely blues on the night shots, I like the 3rd best as the blue gradually darkens from the light source.

I see 4 specs from possible dust though.

Twist

I very impressed with these shots from the D80 Harry - looking foward to more

And you have dust spots already just to pick on you

vp_s_wagon

Cheers,
Yeh I realised them when I got back to the car and had a look at them on the laptop. It's clean now

Harry

schMick

Noice sig change. Good choice.

Moment

harry, the more i look at that 3rd perth one, the more it grows on me. what time did you take that. was it just as the sun had disapeared?

it seems a little soft, but that is most from the huge downsize.

either the lens or the sensor is fucking filty tho, theres a few dustbunnies in that pic in the sky. it didn't take you long did it....

nice work mate

vp_s_wagon

Yeh, those blemishes used to be dust spots but then i used the spot healing thingo to getrid of them... What a shit job it did! I changed my lens in the wind... Bad Idea! DW, it's clean now and now I have the 18-200mm on it so it wont get changed any more.

Yeh, the original is sharp.

I took that shot at 7.14pm (according to the EXIF info... Good old D80 has a clock:) )
ISO 100, f.13, 30sec, 18mm on the 18-200mm



There are actually some photos at the top of the page ( https://www.boostcruising.com/forums/index....mp;p=1280439490 )... You may want to have a look at them too... Just a thought.
Harry

BOOSTMEISTER

4 and 5 are great, really good colour, contrast etc, good flash use or excellent use of available light, sharp too.

Cam

vp_s_wagon

Cheers,
I used a flash for 5, 6 and 7. Not ver bright though, I did a bounce of the wall behind me using the lowest setting it can do. They were still shot at ISO 2500, f.3.5, 1/30 so that the shadows wouldn't be too harsh and I wouldn't drown out the surroundings.

schMick

How long have you been doing the flash bounce? What equipment do you need for it? Is it a swivel hotshoe flash head or something?

O - and your link to your fisheye pics didn't show them. I had a bit of a look thru your thread, but wasn't anything there that I could find.

Cheers,
- Mick

vp_s_wagon

Lol, yeh it's a rather large thread. Not bad for 4 1/2 months work
I only got the flash about 10 days ago, so not very long at all.
It is a swivel hotshoe, Nikon SB-26, got it for $40 from a market (fkn bargain!!) It is TTL which is cool... If u use Film, useless for Digital though
I just use it on manual mode so thats fine and sometimes use it as a slave.
But i used to have an old manual flash which did not swivel I did bounce flash with, there are some examples here:
http://image-cache.boostcruising.com/forum...34413934997.jpg , http://image-cache.boostcruising.com/forum...01294160561.jpg,
http://image-cache.boostcruising.com/forum...67595725016.jpg, http://image-cache.boostcruising.com/forum...12025052972.jpg, http://image-cache.boostcruising.com/forum...97238436223.jpg.
That was the first time I tried it.
The 2nd was at my valedictory dinner and this last set was the 3rd...

The Fisheye ones are about half way down page 14 of the thread, just have quick look at the few posts after that and U'll know what I mean.

Harry

53XEH

nice shots, loving the 3rd city one, perfect time of day for it, maybe a little earlier mighta been better (or not i dunno)

and the amount of noise at 2500 is awesome! mine u can't really go past 1000 - 1600 tops without it looking shitty, and i bet my camera cost a lot more than urs lol (although it's ooooooooold now)