Sunday, January 28, 2007
Glen Shiel
I'm still fighting with the colour thing.
This is a remnant of an old military road (Jacobite rebellion). The battle of Glen Shiel was fought nearby. A Spanish invasion no less.
Permalink / posted by and copyright of Colin [auspiciousdragon.net] : 1:11 PM
Comments:
If you are still fighting with color, at least you aren't losing.
With the inclusion of so much foreground, I find myself wanting more detail. It looks like there might be more detail there that my monitor isn't pulling out.
Matt,
I actually did an eight shot sequence expecting to do an HDR composite, but here I've used the shortest exposure by itself. I've lightened the road, but left the vegetation where it was.
It is right on the edge of being too dark. I'm having difficulty with a (paper) print as the lowest tone details go altogether. How this works on a screen is very sensitive to the precise screen calibration. My laptop screen is showing more detail than my main processing computer's screen (as the later is set up to mimic what might come out on a print).
Given that the amount of foreground detail was a choice, I'd be interested in what others think.
Surely no-one would believe that this is not best in colour? Whatever the history of the various exposures and (no doubt) an optimum merge of light and dark, this is the Highlands with that particular colour and light, inbetween sheets of rain (at the photographer's level). I am blessed with a bright TFT display and this looks really good on it. I guess that this is the M8. One doesn't need 'detail' in the foreground because the road is dominant, and integral to the scene. The dark bracken and hillside is a perfect complement to the snowy hills. That it is difficult to print I can imagine and that is where the bracketed exposures come in, but not lightening the foreground too much.
John,
Aye, this looks nothing in black and white.
Yes, this was the M8 with the new 'cheap' 28mm. I haven't yet tried the Ultron on the camera, but as 28mm appears to be becoming my favourite length it won't be long.
It hadn't been raining for all of thirty minutes when I took this :-)
I have no problem with the detail in the shadows on either of my monitors. It all looks great.
Due to my previous hobby the road is interesting to me (Land Rovers et al!)
This looks like the kind of view that you have to work to see, a long walk from the car. I find it inviting, I would walk this road.
Rex,
It is all an illusion I'm afraid. This is just a fragment of road. Perhaps 150 metres in total. There is a boulder in the middle of the bridge and another immediately behind me. The new road (and my car) is about 50 metres to the left.
I'd been photographing just over that first horizon. Steep white water. Quite spectacular. Lousy photographs.
The 28mm is an Elmarit. Leading to the expression where's Elmarit?
Which would have been a better joke if it had been an Elmar.....
I have no problem with the detail in this either (flat LCD screen). There seems to be lots of it, and the tone of that grass is lovely, dark, earthy green. The sky though seems somehow out of kilter with the rest of the image, the colour of the blue bits that is, though I fully admit that I sometimes think the same of the sky when I observe it first hand.
The grit on the road seems to be mirrored in the detail in the sky. A pleasing touch. I also see plenty of detail in those shadows and the sunlight on the road draws me in slowly. It's also quite interesting how the picture is lined up near enough with the focal point in the centre. However, the angles of the foreground hills combined with the wide angle of the lens conspire to throw this point much higher in my mind. The wispy trees off right add a sense of movement and the clouds foreboding.
My imperial/metric quip was more to do with the 35mm equivalent focal length once placed on an M8. I shoot almost enitrely with a 40mm lens and really enjoy this length. 28 on an M8 nearly gets you there. In passing what framelines do you see - i.e. are they adjusted to take in the crop factor?
akikana,
35m and 40mm are my preferred lengths on a full frame 35mm film camera. 28mm on the M8 comes out at about 37.5, so perhaps it is not surprising that I'm finding that I pick a 28mm first in most circumstances.
The M8 has frame lines tailored to the crop factor such that the 28mm line is right for a 28mm lens, but is, in fact, showing a tighter crop.
Guy,
I could add after today's experience, when I was using a 28mm and a 21mm, that there is an obvious source of confusion. The 21 needs an external finder, and, of course, the external finder is marked 28mm. I'm sure I'll get used to it...
Post a Comment
With the inclusion of so much foreground, I find myself wanting more detail. It looks like there might be more detail there that my monitor isn't pulling out.
I actually did an eight shot sequence expecting to do an HDR composite, but here I've used the shortest exposure by itself. I've lightened the road, but left the vegetation where it was.
It is right on the edge of being too dark. I'm having difficulty with a (paper) print as the lowest tone details go altogether. How this works on a screen is very sensitive to the precise screen calibration. My laptop screen is showing more detail than my main processing computer's screen (as the later is set up to mimic what might come out on a print).
Given that the amount of foreground detail was a choice, I'd be interested in what others think.
Aye, this looks nothing in black and white.
Yes, this was the M8 with the new 'cheap' 28mm. I haven't yet tried the Ultron on the camera, but as 28mm appears to be becoming my favourite length it won't be long.
It hadn't been raining for all of thirty minutes when I took this :-)
Due to my previous hobby the road is interesting to me (Land Rovers et al!)
This looks like the kind of view that you have to work to see, a long walk from the car. I find it inviting, I would walk this road.
It is all an illusion I'm afraid. This is just a fragment of road. Perhaps 150 metres in total. There is a boulder in the middle of the bridge and another immediately behind me. The new road (and my car) is about 50 metres to the left.
I'd been photographing just over that first horizon. Steep white water. Quite spectacular. Lousy photographs.
The 28mm is an Elmarit. Leading to the expression where's Elmarit?
Which would have been a better joke if it had been an Elmar.....
My imperial/metric quip was more to do with the 35mm equivalent focal length once placed on an M8. I shoot almost enitrely with a 40mm lens and really enjoy this length. 28 on an M8 nearly gets you there. In passing what framelines do you see - i.e. are they adjusted to take in the crop factor?
35m and 40mm are my preferred lengths on a full frame 35mm film camera. 28mm on the M8 comes out at about 37.5, so perhaps it is not surprising that I'm finding that I pick a 28mm first in most circumstances.
The M8 has frame lines tailored to the crop factor such that the 28mm line is right for a 28mm lens, but is, in fact, showing a tighter crop.
I could add after today's experience, when I was using a 28mm and a 21mm, that there is an obvious source of confusion. The 21 needs an external finder, and, of course, the external finder is marked 28mm. I'm sure I'll get used to it...