Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Waterfall and cliff
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:12 am    Post subject: Waterfall and cliff Reply with quote

I have this as my screen saver and it looks good is it good enough to go here...CC please,I did do some small PP on it.(that sounds so bad when you read it...small PP Very Happy Embarassed ) it does look better on the computer screen than here why is that?Thanks


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does looks much better when you click on the picture! The contrast is may be a little bit low (took in de middle of the day may be?) but it can also be easily adjust with some extra "small PP" Very Happy ...
Nice landscape btw!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes it would have been taken between 12noon and 1pm I will go back here at sunset when the weather is better as this waterfall does face the setting sun.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey moira
that is a really nice capture and MUCH nicer when you click on it.

obviously to me there is a problem MANY of us have with the quality of uploaded photos to this site. i do not understand why no one pays attention to it and commenters seem to think the problem is lack of correct PP when a perfectly PPd version is viewable by clicking! why do we need to OVER process an image to get it to be correctly viewable on this site? this says to me the problem lies with the site and not with the photographer or the PP process.

i wish someone who actually knew something about this problem would correct it! you and i are not the only ones this happens to!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mo

You are right it really does look so much better when you look at the direct image. Lovely spot and nice shot


patrickh


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:

obviously to me there is a problem MANY of us have with the quality of uploaded photos to this site. i do not understand why no one pays attention to it and commenters seem to think the problem is lack of correct PP when a perfectly PPd version is viewable by clicking! why do we need to OVER process an image to get it to be correctly viewable on this site? this says to me the problem lies with the site and not with the photographer or the PP process.
i wish someone who actually knew something about this problem would correct it! you and i are not the only ones this happens to!


Ryebell do you pay much to upload images on this site?
I ask because judging on the amount and tone of complaining, it seems that you are paying a high subscription fee and expect professional treatment in return.
P.S. we do not appreciate the use of all-capital words here. Thanks.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice one, Mo. Wonderful wild place. Technically looks good to me, exposure and colors spot on. The full res version is gorgeous, this one should be watched for full enjoyment Smile. The small sized one directly attached to the thread suffers of a slight loss of sharpness probably due to the downward resizing. This is not an issue I think, since there is the big one Smile.

Cheers, M.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Orio and Marty -- well, maybe except for the caps thing. Occasional usage of all caps for emphasis is acceptable to me. Some forums' italics fonts are not all that distinguishable from the regular ones -- although this one's is, so I try to use this feature instead of caps here.

Anyway, my immediate impression was that I would bump up the contrast slightly and add just a bit of saturation. Then I viewed the original, and decided that, while it might still could use some saturation and contrast, much less would be necessary.

I seldom upload images here because I have a website and use it for image storage among other things. So mine are not subject to these same restrictions, however, seldom do I post images that are larger than 900x600. So the amount of detail visible in my images is not so much either.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Being taken in the middle of the day it lacks contrast and saturation.
I don't know if you shoot RAW ( is there such a thing for Pentax?) but if you did you can pull out of it some more contrast, saturation, etc.
Being a water fall, pretty big one, I'd go closer and look for a different angle and different time of the day.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
hey moira
that is a really nice capture and MUCH nicer when you click on it.

obviously to me there is a problem MANY of us have with the quality of uploaded photos to this site. i do not understand why no one pays attention to it and commenters seem to think the problem is lack of correct PP when a perfectly PPd version is viewable by clicking! why do we need to OVER process an image to get it to be correctly viewable on this site? this says to me the problem lies with the site and not with the photographer or the PP process.

i wish someone who actually knew something about this problem would correct it! you and i are not the only ones this happens to!


Tony I did explain it at least three times why it have difference and you continuously say always same text ...


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Himself wrote:
Being taken in the middle of the day it lacks contrast and saturation.
I don't know if you shoot RAW ( is there such a thing for Pentax?) but if you did you can pull out of it some more contrast, saturation, etc.
Being a water fall, pretty big one, I'd go closer and look for a different angle and different time of the day.


+1


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is contrast improved one and a bit sharpened too.



PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks to all who gave me advice.I held back from doing to much PPing I think less is best at first.
I have a photobucket account I could link too but have never tried linking between sites?
I have to rush off now but will try out some of your suggestions later on, Thanks again.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the Soligor it is a nugget of a lens the serial number starts with H6679 it's aperture does not form a perfect hexagon but it takes nice pictures and that is what counts.Note it has a flat yellowish back element..that reflects light quite well...not sure if it is age yellowing or an actual coating?







PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mo,

Just lovely. Beautiful scenery, well captured.

My Soligor 135/2.8 preset is the version with the chrome "ears"; I haven't tested it thoroughly enough to know whether it's as capable as yours.

And as an aside - not at all intending to divert the conversation - I must say that I find the trivial inconvenience of clicking an image in order to view a higher-quality version to be wholly insignificant in comparison to the generous image-upload facilities accorded to all members. I've been a member of many other boards that have severely restricted (or eliminated altogether) such facilities, and I'm very grateful for this system.

Cheers,

Jon


PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok I revisited the water fall today and took 3 of my big lenses
#1 Soligor T4 90-230mm...some ok shots but found I did not nail the focus as well...I have to go back with this lens and the Auto Promura...and take more time and when there is better light.
#2 Auto promura 300mm The shot below was from this lens... some PP,not however good as the soligor 135/2.8 but that may have been tripod wobble and clouds above again middle of the day.
#3Astronar 300mm...no good what so ever as I found it does not focus on infinity Sad


edited the soligor lens


Last edited by mo on Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:14 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nice one... I like waterfalls very much
It's amazing how water makes its way Wink


PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mo, it must be nice living so close to such spectacular scenery. Whereabouts in Australia is this?


PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want to say: Vertical subject, Portrait orientation.

The rock formations either side of the waterfall are interesting, however, so I go back & forth, portrait or landscape orientation? I would have to make photos in both orientations, then decide later.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, even a very long telephoto shot of the waterfall (600mm or more, methinks) -- or getting closer to it -- so it could be framed vertically would also be interesting.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael
It is in one of Austalias national parks...in the mountains!
I have to think out side the box..... vertical shot Laughing Thanks for the encouragement and ideas.
This will be a bumper spring due to the drought is over and the rain has been amazing....I am hoping this waterfall will run through summer.