|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Nov 30, 2012 23:44:25 GMT
Taken on the first day of the weekend away  |
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Dec 1, 2012 0:32:30 GMT
I love the scenic feel and quaintness of the little harbor but I am somewhat bothered that the reflected sky isn't the same tonal value as the real sky which I am quite sure you borrowed from another shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeeperman on Dec 1, 2012 2:48:20 GMT
I think the sky is original, but agree there is to much difference, I am guessing a bit of burning.
|
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Dec 1, 2012 10:35:14 GMT
So it needs to be a hit darker in the water or a new it lighter in the sky?
|
|
|
|
Post by mariehass on Dec 1, 2012 11:56:44 GMT
I like the image, Dave. I personally do not care if the sky is original or replaced, but like Chris, just needs to match. Well, maybe. on second thought, with the beautiful colors of the boats, I would rather see the sky lightened to match the tonal values in the reflection.
'Rie
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Dec 1, 2012 12:39:05 GMT
So it needs to be a hit darker in the water or a new it lighter in the sky? Well,, to me, the sky is darker than the water - or, the sky has less "blues" than the reflection. To me, given the highlights on the boats, the colors reflected other than the sky, tonally (colorwise in this case), I would match the sky to the water. And while you are on a bit of an edit, I'd be tempted to open up the shadows a bit on the seawall and in that little estuary left of middle center. |
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Dec 1, 2012 12:52:31 GMT
i do find the shadows suffer when reducing to 800px i often have to lighten the image when i do
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Dec 1, 2012 12:57:00 GMT
i do find the shadows suffer when reducing to 800px i often have to lighten the image when i do I thought as much as this also happened with the seaweed in the lighthouse shot, but thought it was worth a comment. By the by, I did purchase the earlier 70-200 2.8 version. For you, what was the sweet spot for that lens f/stop and focal length-wise on the long side of the lens? |
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Dec 1, 2012 13:14:31 GMT
dunno, its pretty sweet what ever you do with it tbh, it never was, not sharp
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Dec 1, 2012 13:41:18 GMT
Think I went a bit too dark and scary on this nice pastoral scene but I learn more from working with your images than anyplace else. You are a challenge every time.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Wirefox on Dec 1, 2012 17:43:23 GMT
Dave, the original is beautiful. I really would not change a thing. The light is pure liquid and that water is superb. The whole package works for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Dec 1, 2012 18:19:55 GMT
thanks, the original water was covered in foam lumps, took 2.5hrs to clone them out lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Correia on Dec 1, 2012 22:04:16 GMT
Chris has made a terrific B&W image ! Well done Chris  |
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Dec 1, 2012 22:18:30 GMT
I must add that I didn't add the people in but where they came from ill never know as there's nothing to the left of he bridge
|
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Dec 1, 2012 22:19:45 GMT
Think I went a bit too dark and scary on this nice pastoral scene but I learn more from working with your images than anyplace else. You are a challenge every time. Good job mate ill try a mono too |
|
