Herbert Lake & Alpen Glow


Posted by E.J. Peiker on Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:15 pm

All times are UTC-05:00

Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 18 posts | 
Image
Herbert Lake - Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada
EOS 1D, 28-70 @ 44mm, 1/50, f/6.3, 0.6 GND, ISO 200

When I posted the panorama of Herbert Lake the other day, one critique said that they wanted to see more of the interesting part of the scene. Well here it is :) This is another image taken at Herbert Lake at sunrise on a rare totally calm morning.

User avatar
Posted by:
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Posts: 86776
Joined: 16 Aug 2003

   

by matt kuchta on Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:36 pm
User avatar
matt kuchta
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1329
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Western Wisconsin
Classic Banff mountains with gorgeous light. Excellent - the fog on the lake makes it for me.
-matt
NSN 0017
 

by Dan Baumbach on Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:57 pm
User avatar
Dan Baumbach
Forum Contributor
Posts: 596
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Fairfax, CA
Very pretty. I wish I could see more detail in the trees though.

- Dan.
Dan Baumbach
http://www.timelesslight.com
NSN 0069
 

by Peter McCabe on Wed Sep 24, 2003 2:33 pm
User avatar
Peter McCabe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2176
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Location: Ireland
Member #:01046
I like this, I like the way the mist seperates the lake from the land, wonderful light
Peter Mc Cabe - Landscape Photographer Website Facebook YouTube
 

by Bob Ettinger on Wed Sep 24, 2003 5:06 pm
Bob Ettinger
Regional Moderator
Posts: 3111
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Member #:00148
Outstanding.
Bob Ettinger
 

by Laura Stiefel on Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:49 pm
User avatar
Laura Stiefel
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4184
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Northwest, Ohio
Member #:00229
I love shots like this in which the subject appears to glow. Alberta tops my list of places I long to visit and this certainly helps to secure that desire.
Laura Stiefel
[b]NSN 0229[/b]
 

by Rich S on Wed Sep 24, 2003 8:00 pm
User avatar
Rich S
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3833
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: NH & MI
Member #:00019
Very nice. I wasn't the one that asked for more detail here, but I'm very glad you posted it. Gotta ask why the 1D to shoot this rather than the 1Ds (or even 10D)? I'm thinking simply about the number of pixels and the detail possible.

Rich
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Sep 24, 2003 8:06 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86776
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Rich S wrote:Very nice. I wasn't the one that asked for more detail here, but I'm very glad you posted it. Gotta ask why the 1D to shoot this rather than the 1Ds (or even 10D)?
Because the shot was taken in October 2002 before the 1Ds or the 10D was shipping :)
 

by Anders on Thu Sep 25, 2003 12:36 am
User avatar
Anders
Lifetime Member
Posts: 862
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
Member #:00156
EJ,

Very nice, as usual!


Anders
 

by Campbell on Thu Sep 25, 2003 1:04 am
User avatar
Campbell
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4513
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Evanston, Wyoming
E.J.,
This is excellent.
Jason Vaclavek
NSN 0062
http://www.JCVPhoto.com
 

by prashant on Thu Sep 25, 2003 1:44 am
prashant
Forum Contributor
Posts: 910
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Location: UK
Great scene. Great picture.
[b]PrashanTeju Khapane[/b]
[i]Photography, Paintings & Travelogues [/i]
http://www.prashanteju.de
 

by Harvey Edelman on Thu Sep 25, 2003 11:22 am
Harvey Edelman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5863
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Location: Florida
I can see enough detail in the trees to make out texture even at this size. Nice image!
Harvey Edelman
0145
http://www.harveyedelman.com
 

by Kelly on Thu Sep 25, 2003 7:29 pm
User avatar
Kelly
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2382
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Spectacular! :D
Kelly O'Neill
 

by walkinman on Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:46 pm
User avatar
walkinman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2773
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Location: Alaska
Member #:01141
Hey E.J.,

Obviously a great scene. You've got some killer shots of the Canadian Rockies man.

I have both a comment and a question.

Q -- Can you explain how you used a GND filter here? I can see why you wanted some detail in the trees which required some compensation against the brightly llit mountain peak/sky. However, doesn't that lighten the reflection to the point that it is brighter than the peaks? You haven't blown out the reflection at all. I'm always somewhat uncertain in these situations how to expose/filter the shot.

Critique: I'd like the compostion to be skewed slightly to your right .. I think there is excess negative space on the left as is here. I think this would bring the higher peak closer to a power point (not a big issue) but also leave some more room to follow that wonderful ridge line across the frame. On this composition, my eye tends to exit the frame as it reaches the right hand side.

Cheers

Carl
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Sep 27, 2003 12:06 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86776
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I used a 2 stop soft graduation filter. I place the filter with the DOF preview button pushed down so I can see exactly what the filter will do at my selected aperture. I select a filter that does not leave the reflection brighter than the primary image. In most cases, the reflection is somewhat attenuated due to the non-perfect reflecting characteristics of the water which gives you a chance to get a filter in there.

If this were a slide film image, I am 100% certain that I would have lost much of the tree detail due to poor exposure range. in that case, I would have used two ND filters, one for the reflection and one for the primary and left the trees in the clear. But with digital and one to two stops more shadow detail, extracting the tree detail is relatively easy.

As for the composition, just to the right, the shoreline comes rapidly toward me from this shooting location so i really couldn't go much farther to the right. Cropping from the left is a possibility though.
 

by walkinman on Sat Sep 27, 2003 12:34 am
User avatar
walkinman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2773
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Location: Alaska
Member #:01141
Hey E.J.,

Thanks for your prompt reply. I guess you're saying you just kinda filtered for the reflectoin/Peaks, and hope for the best with the tree detail? And when you said 2 filters with slide film, would you place one upside down for the reflection, like a 1-stop soft edge, and a darker filter, upright, for the trees and shoreline?

Thanks again.

Cheers

Carl
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Sep 27, 2003 12:40 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86776
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Actually you can spot meter the sky through the filter and then the trees through the clear part and as long as you can get it down to about 5 stops different with digital, you will know that you will record enough detail - with film its more like 3 1/2 stops to make sure you still get enough detail. Why so little? well you still need to keep the sky from being white and keep detail in the trees.

Yes, in the situation of needing to get more tree detail while holding both the sky and the reflection in check, I would use a 1 stop on the water and a 3 stop on the sky or whatever combination looks like it will all record. Again digital helps here with the histogram but developing an eye for this sort of thing will make you get it right the first time almost every time.
 

by walkinman on Sat Sep 27, 2003 12:58 am
User avatar
walkinman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2773
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Location: Alaska
Member #:01141
Thanks E.J.,

I appreciate your time and explanation man.

Cheers

Carl
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
18 posts | 

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group