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

Northern Greece tour (on the road - part 1)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:20 pm    Post subject: Northern Greece tour (on the road - part 1) Reply with quote
I am on the road on my northern Greece tour.

Here are some photos. Enjoy.
Enjoy them properly, because uploading at 1.6kb/sec is SLOW Laughing

#1 Meteora


#2 Meteora


#3 Zeiss 2/100 Makro Planar ZE


#4 And a wedding!!
They took me by surprise and I was forced to use the awful Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II Laughing
105mm, f/9, 1/160sec


Venetikos river bridge
Contax 1,4/50 Planar @ f/2


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Magnificent places, shoots, many thanks for sharing them!


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One and Two are just breathtaking.... Smile

More details please?

Thanks


Doug


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nemesis101 wrote:
One and Two are just breathtaking.... Smile

More details please?


Meteora is an UNESCO World Heritage Site, near the town of Trikala.
In greek, meteora means "suspended in the air".
They consist of unique rock formations. The rocks are massive, solid and usually very steep. They were inhabited by monks around year 1000 AD.
Today there are 7 monasteries in operation.
For obvious reasons, they are a famous rock climbing field.

Wikipedia entry

I forgot to mention that #1 and #2 are HDR. The second is also handheld.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What a beautifull place, the second one is just "magic" Shocked ......


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
WOW Shocked Shocked

Great place and beautifully captured. #1 screams for a pano Wink

Cheers
Tobias


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
#1 is majestic!
#2 is breathtaking!


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, dream location!
I like very much the composition in your first two landscape images!

but alas I can not say the same about the HDR. I just can't get myself to like it, I find the images to lack the depth of blacks and to have lost the Zeiss microcontrast on their way to HDR.
In the second one, some rocks appear brighter to me than the mid-tone clouds.

I wish I could see these shots without HDR, with normal processing and just a little fill light or highlight recovery if needed. I'm sure they will look great.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
superb locations!
what laptop do you use for the HDR


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Wow, dream location!
I wish I could see these shots without HDR, with normal processing and just a little fill light or highlight recovery if needed. I'm sure they will look great.

I can understand why you do not like HDR.
I had some second thoughts myself, so I have the second one ready.
My concern was the loss of sharpness and definition due to small camera movements.
I guess you also worry about HDR destroying the "character" of the lens.
You may be right.

So, here it is. The difference is not so great as in other situations.
#2 without HDR (only shadows-highlights adjustment)


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
superb locations!
what laptop do you use for the HDR

What laptop? Perhaps you mean what software?
Anyway, I have a Macbook Pro (early 2008 model, 2.5GHz).
The software is Photomatix.

HDR is not so demanding in terms of processing power.
Panorama stitching can be a monster...


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like it much better, Nikos, because the sky now is more luminous than the rocks, which it's how it ought to be!

I personally would lower even more the fill light. Doesn't matter if you lose a bit of detail in the rocks; you will gain more solidity by letting them be a bit more darker.
Lowering the fill light will improve microcontrast and saturation.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quite agree about the effects of HDR (Dynamic Range Reduction/Compression), it doesn't "feel" right because it is not what the eye sees. Second version is much much better, which is great because this is such a fine series. Keep them rolling please


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Quite agree about the effects of HDR (Dynamic Range Reduction/Compression), it doesn't "feel" right because it is not what the eye sees. Second version is much much better, which is great because this is such a fine series. Keep them rolling please


patrickh

It may be the laptop monitor or it may be my color blindness, but I do not see such a big difference between the two versions.
Anyway, I trust you Smile

If the HDR version didn't come out nice, it is probably my fault.
There are about 200 parameters in this program and I use it
only from time to time Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fantastic! What a place! Wow!
You have used excellent lenses to shoot great shots.

My fav is the non-HDR #2!


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nkanellopoulos wrote:

It may be the laptop monitor or it may be my color blindness, but I do not see such a big difference between the two versions.
Anyway, I trust you Smile


Nikos, it's easy to spot the difference, put the two pictures side by side: in the HDR picture there seems to be a huge flash illuminating the rocks from the camera position; in the normal picture, the light seems to emanate from the sky (as it does). This is why the first image seems unreal and the second image seems realistic.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I visited the place some years ago. It is really a fascinating place. There was a church but it was closed so we could not visit. Too bad I only had point & shoot camera by that time.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great images! I also like the non-HDR better.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Nikos, it's easy to spot the difference, put the two pictures side by side: in the HDR picture there seems to be a huge flash illuminating the rocks from the camera position; in the normal picture, the light seems to emanate from the sky (as it does). This is why the first image seems unreal and the second image seems realistic.

OK.
Do you find this one natural?

EDIT: I think I have found an issue here. In my browser the colors are significantly different than in my viewing program (Preview on Mac).
Both contrasgt and saturation drop significantly. Is the upload mechanism altering the image, even if not resizing it?
EDIT 2: I am using Adobe RGB color. But Safari and Firefox are supposed to know about color profiles... I will also upload an sRGB version to compare them. Are they different?

Adobe RGB


sRGB


Last edited by Nikos on Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:40 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wow! this EF 15 is a CA monster Shocked and poor resolution!


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I use Opera 10 and a pretty nice Fujitsu-Siemens LCD.
The sRGB shot shows a higher contrast and the shadows seem to be a bit darker than in the AdobeRGB shot, whereas the highlights tend to burn out in the sRGB shot. The greens seem to be more intense in the sRGB shot as well.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
I use Opera 10 and a pretty nice Fujitsu-Siemens LCD.
The sRGB shot shows a higher contrast and the shadows seem to be a bit darker than in the AdobeRGB shot, whereas the highlights tend to burn out in the sRGB shot. The greens seem to be more intense in the sRGB shot as well.

The moral of the story: convert to sRGB before posting...


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikos, the two images seem identical on Firefox and they are both the best version of the image that you made so far. The deep blacks in the rocks give the rocks the needed "weight".


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Nikos, the two images seem identical on Firefox ...

This is weird. Why do I see a clear difference with Opera?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the geography / geology info.. interesting as in a past life I taught geology...

I was actually asking for more details of the shots themselves like camera lens settings P/P etc! lol

Doug

nkanellopoulos wrote:
nemesis101 wrote:
One and Two are just breathtaking.... Smile

More details please?


Meteora is an UNESCO World Heritage Site, near the town of Trikala.
In greek, meteora means "suspended in the air".
They consist of unique rock formations. The rocks are massive, solid and usually very steep. They were inhabited by monks around year 1000 AD.
Today there are 7 monasteries in operation.
For obvious reasons, they are a famous rock climbing field.

Wikipedia entry

I forgot to mention that #1 and #2 are HDR. The second is also handheld.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2