This could be posted in Pano too but the focus is on landscape than Pano technique so I chose to post it here.
This is from atop Sterling Vineyards in Calistoga, California (about 25 miles north of Napa town). Calistoga is known
for springs and mud bath. The winery is situated on a big knoll or a small hill. The access is through a tram. This
shot is a 24 image stitch panning from south to west and since I tried to keep the sky not blown the foreground came
dark. I used Katrina fill flash in PS7 and over laid over the original and kept the sky from the original. Poor man's HDR if
you will.
With best regards,
Sury
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsu ... .jpg[/img]
DSC34495518_24_stitchfillovrlay by BigSury, on Flickr[/url]
Landscape 2013
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
- sury
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
- Location: San Jose, California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Landscape 2013
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper
Re: Landscape 2013
A big view Sury. I am struck by the similarity of the country side here to the UK; gentle hills and green valleys. I like the cloud formation in the sky.
Nex 5, Nex 6 (IR), A7M2, A99 and a bunch of lenses.
Re: Landscape 2013
Here are a couple from a very brief trip out after work to catch the last of the light while testing a new body and lens. There was a very photogenic rain cloud that conveniently moved across the hills on the horizon as the sun set. It was very chilly out (2 or 3 degrees centigrade) and the attractive vista was somewhat spoilt by the bonfire in some waste ground near the road behind me where someone seemed to be burning plastic and old tires.
2013 Teme Valley - Tree asnd Rain Cloud by Birm, on Flickr
2013 Teme Valley - Rain over the valley by Birm, on Flickr
Both with Sony A99 and KM 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (D). I'm going to start another thread describing my full-frame adventure (see here http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... 044#p78044 ) so just a few comments on the lens here. I am very interested to investigate which wide-angle I am most comfortable with on FF. I like the Sony CZ 16-80 on APS-C and so something 24+ on FF would seem to be ideal. The Sony CZ 24-70 is a big purchase and if 28+ was sufficiently wide for me then the Sony or Tamron 28-75 would be less painful for the bank balance. However perhaps even wider would be better. I have not enjoyed using the Tamron 11-18 range on APS-C, but maybe there is a different feel to ultra wide on FF? I decided to get hold of a second-hand 17-35 (f/2.8-4) and then with my 24-105 (and 35-70) I could investigate what I felt most comfortable / useful with on FF before making a bigger investment in glass. I tried shots at 17, 24, and 35 and the ones at 17 on FF were may favourite. Obviously very early days and no decisions yet.
The KM 17-35 is a nice enough lens. Vignetting and soft in the corners at 17mm (perhaps just as would be expected with this field of view). Zooms and focuses nicely for sedate landscape shooting. Big flare in the first shot, but the sun is in the centre of the frame (nice to have an EVF in these cases to protect the eyes!). Seems crisp enough over most of the frame and the corners improve as you zoom in.
2013 Teme Valley - Tree asnd Rain Cloud by Birm, on Flickr
2013 Teme Valley - Rain over the valley by Birm, on Flickr
Both with Sony A99 and KM 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (D). I'm going to start another thread describing my full-frame adventure (see here http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... 044#p78044 ) so just a few comments on the lens here. I am very interested to investigate which wide-angle I am most comfortable with on FF. I like the Sony CZ 16-80 on APS-C and so something 24+ on FF would seem to be ideal. The Sony CZ 24-70 is a big purchase and if 28+ was sufficiently wide for me then the Sony or Tamron 28-75 would be less painful for the bank balance. However perhaps even wider would be better. I have not enjoyed using the Tamron 11-18 range on APS-C, but maybe there is a different feel to ultra wide on FF? I decided to get hold of a second-hand 17-35 (f/2.8-4) and then with my 24-105 (and 35-70) I could investigate what I felt most comfortable / useful with on FF before making a bigger investment in glass. I tried shots at 17, 24, and 35 and the ones at 17 on FF were may favourite. Obviously very early days and no decisions yet.
The KM 17-35 is a nice enough lens. Vignetting and soft in the corners at 17mm (perhaps just as would be expected with this field of view). Zooms and focuses nicely for sedate landscape shooting. Big flare in the first shot, but the sun is in the centre of the frame (nice to have an EVF in these cases to protect the eyes!). Seems crisp enough over most of the frame and the corners improve as you zoom in.
Nex 5, Nex 6 (IR), A7M2, A99 and a bunch of lenses.
- sury
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
- Location: San Jose, California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Landscape 2013
Nice shots Andy. I love the first one for the sunset. Your photos along with others are giving
me ideas about exploring more likely discovering the pleasure of using wide angles.
Widest I have is a 24f2 and then 24-70f2.8. Personally it was a relearning my composition
methods (or more like habits) since I always did stitching with a zoom.
With best regards,
Sury
me ideas about exploring more likely discovering the pleasure of using wide angles.
Widest I have is a 24f2 and then 24-70f2.8. Personally it was a relearning my composition
methods (or more like habits) since I always did stitching with a zoom.
With best regards,
Sury
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper
- Dr. Harout
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5662
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
- Location: Yerevan, Armenia
- Contact:
Re: Landscape 2013
Yes, I love the first shot too, Andy.
- sury
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
- Location: San Jose, California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Landscape 2013
From the outing couple of weeks ago. CZ2470 on A900.
DSC36058shadowboost by BigSury, on Flickr
DSC35652autocontrshdw by BigSury, on Flickr
DSC36058shadowboost by BigSury, on Flickr
DSC35652autocontrshdw by BigSury, on Flickr
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper
- pakodominguez
- Minister with Portfolio
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Landscape 2013
The ZA 24-70 f2.8 is definitely a great lens and surely worth it's expensive price.Birma wrote:... Both with Sony A99 and KM 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (D).
I am very interested to investigate which wide-angle I am most comfortable with on FF. I like the Sony CZ 16-80 on APS-C and so something 24+ on FF would seem to be ideal. The Sony CZ 24-70 is a big purchase and if 28+ was sufficiently wide for me then the Sony or Tamron 28-75 would be less painful for the bank balance. However perhaps even wider would be better. I have not enjoyed using the Tamron 11-18 range on APS-C, but maybe there is a different feel to ultra wide on FF? I decided to get hold of a second-hand 17-35 (f/2.8-4) and then with my 24-105 (and 35-70) I could investigate what I felt most comfortable / useful with on FF before making a bigger investment in glass. I tried shots at 17, 24, and 35 and the ones at 17 on FF were may favourite. Obviously very early days and no decisions yet.
The KM 17-35 is a nice enough lens. Vignetting and soft in the corners at 17mm (perhaps just as would be expected with this field of view). Zooms and focuses nicely for sedate landscape shooting. Big flare in the first shot, but the sun is in the centre of the frame (nice to have an EVF in these cases to protect the eyes!). Seems crisp enough over most of the frame and the corners improve as you zoom in.
The Sony/Minolta 28-75 f2.8 is a good option (good IQ, great at close focus, the Sony version is SAM and, in my own experience, focus a little faster and more accurate than the Minolta) I don't think you need a zoom that starts at 24mm if you already have the 17-35 f2.8-4. In order to avoid vignetting or soft corners, use the 17-35 at f11 (and a slim filter, not the regular ones). At the long end, this lens can be soft if wide open
I don't believe the 24-105 is good enough for 24MP full frame cameras -It was quite good on the 7D; just OK on the A700 and if you got FF I fear you'll be disappointed.
Regards
Pako
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Landscape 2013
Thanks Pako. That's useful advice.
Any thoughts on the latest Sigma 24-70 or the forthcoming Tamron 24-70?
Any thoughts on the latest Sigma 24-70 or the forthcoming Tamron 24-70?
Nex 5, Nex 6 (IR), A7M2, A99 and a bunch of lenses.
Re: Landscape 2013
I recently got a variable ND filter. I took this shot with it last Sunday. With hindsight I should have lowered the ISO to give a longer exposure, but its OK I guess.
regards - Peter
regards - Peter
Last edited by dewarp on Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
- sury
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
- Location: San Jose, California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Landscape 2013
Nice contrast between dreamy soft water and harsh rocks. Love it.
Sury
Sury
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper
Re: Landscape 2013
Hi Sury
You beat me to it! I decided that I had lightened the image too much and swopped it out for the un-lightened version. Meanwhile you viewed the old one! - but its not too different.
regards - Peter
You beat me to it! I decided that I had lightened the image too much and swopped it out for the un-lightened version. Meanwhile you viewed the old one! - but its not too different.
regards - Peter
- sury
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
- Location: San Jose, California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Landscape 2013
This one certainly is a bit less differentiated than the replaced one, if my memory serves me right.
This is less bimodal and more landscape like.The other one was more like I want to emphasize the
rugged land and calmer seas
Sury
This is less bimodal and more landscape like.The other one was more like I want to emphasize the
rugged land and calmer seas
Sury
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper
Re: Landscape 2013
Hi Peter - that is a really nice picture. I like the colours, and the lighting, with the sweep of the bay leading you through to the sky with great cloud formations. There is a very interesting quality to the image overall. I assume this is from PP, but it has the feel of an illustration or painting. How do you do this? I am a bit of a sucker for silky smooth sea, although sometimes waves can provide some nice splashes of texture in close.
Nex 5, Nex 6 (IR), A7M2, A99 and a bunch of lenses.
Re: Landscape 2013
Hi Birma
As with most of my stuff, a lot of PP was involved. I took about 60 images over a period of about an hour as the sun went down. These were a combination of straight shots and long duration ND filter shots (obviously with the camera fixed on a tripod). I selected about half a dozen images that had specific advantages and converted to TIFF. I then combined the good points of about four of these images. I removed one large rock outcrop that ruined the composition. I then shifted the colours slightly towards the split complimentary yellow-purple-blue, which is probably what gives it the "painting" feel that you sense. The image as presented here is a bit disapointing when compared to the print, but I guess that's normal.
regards - Peter
As with most of my stuff, a lot of PP was involved. I took about 60 images over a period of about an hour as the sun went down. These were a combination of straight shots and long duration ND filter shots (obviously with the camera fixed on a tripod). I selected about half a dozen images that had specific advantages and converted to TIFF. I then combined the good points of about four of these images. I removed one large rock outcrop that ruined the composition. I then shifted the colours slightly towards the split complimentary yellow-purple-blue, which is probably what gives it the "painting" feel that you sense. The image as presented here is a bit disapointing when compared to the print, but I guess that's normal.
regards - Peter
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests