Sunshine on a rainy day

[Stevewebb]

I took these last Saturday but have only just got around to looking at them. It was quite strange just how close this rainbow looked.

This was taken with the 24-105 at 105mm, iso 400, f9, 1/400


This was with my 8mm fisheye, iso 400, f11, 1/250


Thanks for looking.

[jiro]

Imagine that, a double rainbow! Brought a little smile on my face, Steve. Thank you very much for the nice photo and the encouragement.

[janis]

Lucky you, Steve, to have had such a sight. The rain clouds are amassing here and supposed to stick around through tomorrow, so maybe I will get lucky, too. I love the one with the wheat in the foreground; I was going to say I wish that building (if that's what it is) were more prominent, but no, it's good as it is.

[Stevewebb]

Thanks Willie and Janis. There is something very magical and soothing about a rainbow isnt there?

[mariehass]

Steve, I like the look and composition of the last one. Is there any way to make the rainbow a bit
brighter. The wheat competes for my attention.

'Rie

[Barry]

Steve, did you have a polariser filter on, and these will really add extra density to a rainbow. Out of the two shots, I prefer the second one, although I think I would had cropped off a bit more off the top.

[Kay]

A very unusual point of view, in the second one, makes it very interesting!

[The Wirefox]

The aspect of the second shot is great. But it looks a tad dull to me Steve. It might be worth selecting the foreground and dragging the right 1/4 of the tonal curve up very slightly with equal measure on the left but dragging downward.

You have certainly had some use out of that fisheye lens and to good effect

[Stevewebb]

Aug 12, 2012 17:50:57 GMT mariehass said:

Steve, I like the look and composition of the last one. Is there any way to make the rainbow a bit
brighter. The wheat competes for my attention.

'Rie

Thanks Rie, I will have another go at making the rainbow ping a bit more.

[Stevewebb]

Aug 12, 2012 19:48:27 GMT Barry said:

Steve, did you have a polariser filter on, and these will really add extra density to a rainbow. Out of the two shots, I prefer the second one, although I think I would had cropped off a bit more off the top.

No polariser Barry I'm afraid. I don't have one that fits the 24-105 yet and you can't put one on the fish eye. I will try a crop of a bit more from the top.

[Stevewebb]

Aug 13, 2012 9:29:23 GMT Kay said:

A very unusual point of view, in the second one, makes it very interesting!

Thanks Kay. The fisheye is great for a different perspective on a shot.

[Stevewebb]

Aug 13, 2012 19:20:01 GMT The Wirefox said:

The aspect of the second shot is great. But it looks a tad dull to me Steve. It might be worth selecting the foreground and dragging the right 1/4 of the tonal curve up very slightly with equal measure on the left but dragging downward.

You have certainly had some use out of that fisheye lens and to good effect

Thanks Steve. I'm intreagued that you said it looks dull as I thought I had taken it too much the other way. I will try another edit.

I must admit I love that lens

[jeeperman]

I like both but look forward to seeing your edits.

[Stevewebb]

Edit based on everyone's comments.

More contrast, more vibrance in the rainbow, a bit more saturation in the wheat, and a crop of a bit from the top and bottom.

[Seri]

I think that's a great improvement, Steve, though the green cast looks a touch odd.

But for me, I like the first one best. As you say, the rainbow looks almost supernaturally close, and that does it for me The light behind the trees also looks quite mystical.

I've heard about using a polariser for rainbows, but by the time I've located one, attached it and adjusted it correctly, the bloomin' rainbow's gone