while i was waiting for my pizza to be cooked (wood fired?)

[bribrius]

clicked off some shutters. here is one just going through them now (while I eat the pizza)

 

[bribrius]

oh, this just straight bw it wasn't transferred in processing it is actually just jpeg.

 

[bribrius]

these are getting like two second edits right now so if they suck just say "hey bri wth did you do?"

 

[bribrius]

these are sooc. I think I used the in camera hdr on these though it looks it anyway. Probably aren't level.

 

[bribrius]

okay this is just in manual no hdr sooc. personally I think it looks better I kind of think hdr sucks in most circumstances (not all). yeah the aperature is a little low I have another one on here I think in the f12 around 400 iso range but the exposure was pushing the 30 second mark...

1/1.3 5.6 4000 iso

 

[bribrius]

sooc 4.5 20 sec 400 iso

any suggestions on shooting technique feel free. I set these on a cement barrier and on the hood of the car and used the self timer. Then went to get my pizza.

 

[bribrius]

don't know ifi will bother fixing this one or not, might just crop I had some doubts when i did it but was kind of wondering about the lighter half of the frame more. brought the shutter up the 3 seconds and it didn't like it (iso 640)

thanks for looking. Any suggestions speak up.

 

[Designer]

It is hard to know what your main subject is. the shot in post #6 has possibilities due to the interesting shapes and light.

 

[KenC]

Some of them are overexposed for sure. This is very difficult lighting to deal with. Color is especially tough because the light on the building is orange and the shadows are blue. For me the straight B&W in the second post works best - surprisingly good for a straight in-camera jpg.

I agree about HDR often not working very well - it would get you all the detail in both the shadows and highlights, but that would end up looking fake and not that interesting, at least to me. Some "natural-looking" HDR work brings out more detail without looking fake, but not many people have the ability to do that.

Anyhow, back to these, I feel like that light on the building is killing me. I know this is subjective because some might want the light there to show where the reflections on the water come from or to accurately give the "feel" of the scene, where that light would be in your eyes, but I'm more interested in the contrast and textures in the stone and water, so the light is a distraction.

 

[bribrius]

Some of them are overexposed for sure. This is very difficult lighting to deal with. Color is especially tough because the light on the building is orange and the shadows are blue. For me the straight B&W in the second post works best - surprisingly good for a straight in-camera jpg.

I agree about HDR often not working very well - it would get you all the detail in both the shadows and highlights, but that would end up looking fake and not that interesting, at least to me. Some "natural-looking" HDR work brings out more detail without looking fake, but not many people have the ability to do that.

Anyhow, back to these, I feel like that light on the building is killing me. I know this is subjective because some might want the light there to show where the reflections on the water come from or to accurately give the "feel" of the scene, where that light would be in your eyes, but I'm more interested in the contrast and textures in the stone and water, so the light is a distraction.

right side is so much darker than the left. i had the exposure at 1.7 (unscientific guess) and metered it on matrix.
Thanks, i actually kind of liked 5, but i still have a couple more to look at in the f8-f11 . i did this for like twenty minutes or more. Like this better ? f10. with these, it is so much the light is on the OTHER SIDE of the center concrete barrier. so the right waterfall has a natural inclination to be in near total darkness while the left is exposed correctly. oh this is a transfer off the raw. I think all the ones before were pretty much jpegs, i kind of lost track of what i was putting up they look pretty much the same to me unless i go to mess with exposure or white balance and i cant then i notice it isn't a raw file.

 

[bribrius]

25 s 2000 iso 5.6 metering just for the right side of the water fall. Really is amazing the light difference just from one side to the other. i have tons of photos of this thing it isn't too far away and not to far away from the pizza joint. lol
Each time i screw around shooting it i try to figure out a way that would make more sense... these last ones are all sooc. i think i did bring up the shadows in the first and maybe second posts. whatever . how to bang away 20 shots in 20 or so minutes waiting for a pizza pretty much. i have no life.

 

[bribrius]

It is hard to know what your main subject is. the shot in post #6 has possibilities due to the interesting shapes and light.

oh it is just a little water fall. i live near a few of these and there isn't really much else out here to shoot at other than trees, some old factory buildings a little away, people, my dog...

since the river is right across from me a couple of these are right up or down river from my house i walk to them sometimes. Nothing spectacular.
thanks for the comment.

 

[bribrius]

so ken likes 2 (and hates the light), i like 5, designer likes 6...then i posted 10 which i thought was decent and i still probably have three more shots in that f8-f11 range.
doesn't seem like i made much headway on deciding....

 

[bribrius]

i am looking at this on a little monitor because the kids have the big screen. Can anyone tell me how it really looks? weeding out for authentic now but there is that line between looking authentic and being just bad. wondering about noise it is at 4000 iso (not a bad thing but too much and..)

 

[limr34 3]

It's noisy and the focus is soft.

Oddly, I think I like this one. Admittedly, in terms of image quality, it's too noisy and I'm not a fan of the yellowish cast to it, but I like the way the light leads you through the picture and the more - for lack of a better word - focused composition (better, though, if the house hadn't been cut off.)

The light on the house...I am torn on it. Like Ken says, sometimes it's just far too dominant. But I also think it serves as a good starting point for your eye because the light follows the path of the water, too, so it does feel like a natural progression.

I don't mind losing shadow detail, so I'd probably err on the side of less exposure so the house light doesn't get overbearing, you still get nice light on the water, and you get a moodier sort of shot.