Home Register · Login 


Recent Photos
1 day  7 days  14 days

Users 21,499
Photos 75,838
Comments 268,142
Views 177,457,081

Top Posters
ripper 4408
fungus2 2305
phototoad 1389
Bridget 1243
Amandart 1091

Latest News

» Home » Photo of the Week (CLOSED) » 2005 » ExposureManager Photo of the Week: 2005 : August 15th - 28th Slide Show

Llyn Brenig

Llyn Brenig

3 stop ND grad CP.

0.6 seconds
18-55mm @ 52mm



See all User Photos

Registered: January 2004
Posts: 485
  • Pin It
Date: Mon August 15, 2005
Views: 6,067
Filesize: 102.7kb
Dimensions: 600 x 600
Keywords: gnd

#1 Mon August 15, 2005 7:44pm

This image makes me feel like I could walk into it and down to the water. I feel like I'm standing there. You nailed this shot! What time of day was this taken and is this medium format? Not that it really matters just curious...
#2 Mon August 15, 2005 7:56pm

I fear to tread, but will do so nicely. A lovely composition, wonderful scene. But over use of filters has taken it in a direction I do not like at all. I loathe polarising filters for the false sick blue sky, wish more people would ignore them.
#3 Mon August 15, 2005 7:57pm

Again, I don't mind the critique, but over use of filters?!! I used an ND grad to keep the sky from being completely overexposed, or foreground underexposed. From measuring the sky and foreground there were exactly three stops difference, hence I used a 3 stop ND grad - pretty unavoidable really unless I took two shots (one exposed for forground and one for the sky), and merged them afterwards in PS. And in terms of a polariser!!! - They also bring out richer colour all round by blocking off reflecting light. With all the bright colour in the shot, I wanted to bring this out.

How is this sick and false? Perhaps you should invest in some filters, stop being so old fashioned, and learn how cameras and light work.
#4 Mon August 15, 2005 8:07pm

richard crowe
I like it a lot - very atmospheric
Richard Crowe

Visit My Website

#5 Mon August 15, 2005 8:10pm

The sky on this day was very blue and actually looks quite close to how I saw it with my own eyes. If I didn't use an ND grad and exposed for the foreground, 3 stops difference would have completely blown the sky out - which wouldn't have resulted in a natural shot.

I've heard people argue about using digital Vs Film before, but never about using ND grads or not!!!
#6 Mon August 15, 2005 8:21pm

And now you are being racist!!! What has my nationality got to do with any of this?

For the sake of everyone else, the above was in response to a racist remark that I notice was quickly removed for some reason.
#7 Mon August 15, 2005 8:39pm

Errmmm, could you guys keep the noise down a little? Smile
Mark Goldstein
Editor, PhotographyBLOG
#8 Mon August 15, 2005 8:42pm

Will do Mark - this guy is ridiculous, well out of order, and racist to boot...
#9 Mon August 15, 2005 8:44pm

A stunning, dramatic shot, rich in texture and colour and great comp. Barry's Crusade wages on and gets increasingly tiresome.
#10 Mon August 15, 2005 8:45pm

Barry, I warned you about your pending coronary...

I think you have handled the exposure perfectly on this one Gav, though I might have dialled back the poloriser a tad. The White building near the left edge of frame keeps pulling my eye off to the left, could you have panned a little right to exclude it?

Just a small point about use of Grads (for Barry's benefit) The human optical system has a large 'dynamic range" and can cope with quite extreme contrast, the brain automatically adjusts for this. Film (Or Digital Sensors) cannot do this. Therefore filtration that brings brightness of the sky closer to that of the foreground brings the final image closer to that which was observed. (Well I think so anyway...)
#11 Mon August 15, 2005 8:59pm

Mac points noted. It is true that the eye handles light better than film, however I think digital has improved on this. It is a sad day when a forum turns into a slagging match. this was not what was intended. Neither was it to offend others. I have strong points, maybe they are loopy, but I tried to at least be constructive with this picture. In return my work was trashed and I was ganged up on in an attempt to annoy me. Yes it did. This is a good shot but filters have gone too far and removed it to artwork. This was my point and this alone. If anyone is insulted and angry at me I am sorry. But if i blew a fuse it has gone now. For good. In the interests of diplomacy I am removing any offensive comments, and apologize to all for them. I will however stick to my guns on this topic. Nothing new in filter heavy shots. Superb composition shame about the pink clouds. You went Overboard on it.
#12 Mon August 15, 2005 9:06pm

#13 Mon August 15, 2005 9:08pm

Oh... While everyone is having their say, this is for you Gav... Quid Pro Quo... ie. it would be nice to see some more commenting from you. Wink
#14 Mon August 15, 2005 9:10pm

Point taken, been a bit busy recently though Wink
#15 Mon August 15, 2005 9:24pm

Page:  1 · 2 · 3

Photo Sharing Gallery by PhotoPost
Copyright © 2012 All Enthusiast, Inc.

No portion of this page, text, images or code, may be copied, reproduced, published or distributed in any medium without the expressed written permission of the copyright holder.

© Copyright 2003-2013 Photo 360 Limited