sunset in the mountains | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
big
...and 172 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614116
Today 2
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
sunset in the mountains
 

offline chaosmachine from Ottawa (Canada) on 2006-07-29 00:55 [#01945197]
Points: 2330 Status: Lurker



you might remember last year i posted some pictures from
the top of champlain lookout in quebec.. they didn't turn
out very well.

lately i've been up there a lot, and i think i finally got
the pictures i wanted from it.

photos


 

offline scup_bucket from bloated exploding piss pockets on 2006-07-29 01:00 [#01945199]
Points: 4540 Status: Regular



I must ask, did you photoshop the sun in some of those? it
looks sort of...out of place in a few


 

offline Ophecks from Nova Scotia (Canada) on 2006-07-29 01:07 [#01945205]
Points: 19190 Status: Moderator | Followup to scup_bucket: #01945199 | Show recordbag



It looks really cruel in h.jpg. Bad intentions, I told
you...

Cool pics.


 

offline scup_bucket from bloated exploding piss pockets on 2006-07-29 01:09 [#01945206]
Points: 4540 Status: Regular



I'm just wondering out the sun got in front of those clouds?
or is that a komeomeo blast sent by goku from dragon ball
Z?


 

offline scup_bucket from bloated exploding piss pockets on 2006-07-29 01:10 [#01945207]
Points: 4540 Status: Regular



out=how



 

offline chaosmachine from Ottawa (Canada) on 2006-07-29 01:19 [#01945211]
Points: 2330 Status: Lurker | Followup to scup_bucket: #01945199



keep in mind these were shot with a digital camera, so the
sun looks different than it would on film.

however, they are real pictures taken with a real camera in
real time. no sun was cut or paste..

really :)


 

offline scup_bucket from bloated exploding piss pockets on 2006-07-29 01:24 [#01945216]
Points: 4540 Status: Regular



that compilation picture does not include h1280, which is
the suspicious one...but I'll let it slide. This time.

Also, I'm going to bed before I regret some dilusional posts


 

offline scup_bucket from bloated exploding piss pockets on 2006-07-29 01:25 [#01945219]
Points: 4540 Status: Regular



why is this place so interesting at 3:30 in the morning?


 

offline Ophecks from Nova Scotia (Canada) on 2006-07-29 01:27 [#01945221]
Points: 19190 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



THE SUN IS ALREADY BEGINNING ITS UNHOLY INFLATION
PREGNANT WITH RAGE
THE CLOUDS NO LONGER CONTAIN IT



 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2006-07-29 01:30 [#01945222]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict | Followup to chaosmachine: #01945197



the samuel de champlin statue in ottawa? its pretty up
there. and you always hear the rumble of cars going over
that weird cattle-grid bridge just below.


 

offline chaosmachine from Ottawa (Canada) on 2006-07-29 01:42 [#01945230]
Points: 2330 Status: Lurker | Followup to scup_bucket: #01945216



the sun is not "in front" of the clouds. what you're seeing
is the result of the jpeg's compressed dynamic range.

by default, the canon 20d takes photos with 12 bits of
brightness for each channel, which means you have room to
adjust the exposure up or down in post.. but in the end, you
lose 4 bits of brightness data when you make the conversion
to jpeg.

in order to make the very dark mountains visible, the very
bright clouds in front of the sun are compressed to almost
the same brightness. on a good monitor, you will be able to
see the clouds are still there, but almost the same
brightness as the sun.

here is the opposite effect with the exact same
image. i have adjusted the exposure down, and now the dark
range of the image has been compressed in order to give more
bits to the high range. now you can see the difference in
brightness between the clouds in front of the sun and sun
itself, but the mountains are lost in the darkness.

and that concludes today's lesson on digital photography. :)


 

offline J198 from Maastricht (Netherlands, The) on 2006-07-29 04:05 [#01945323]
Points: 7342 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



sorry, but these really are spectacularly uninteresting.

i can see cooler sunsets in my city.

sorry man but this is just below average. do you actually
believe you did something special here?

i'd say go for frog macros but not in black&white of course,
and try a fill flash.



 

offline chaosmachine from Ottawa (Canada) on 2006-07-29 07:36 [#01945371]
Points: 2330 Status: Lurker



they are pictures of a sunset in the mountains. nothing
more, nothing less. if you like them, that's ok, if you
don't, that's ok.


 

offline Dannn_ from United Kingdom on 2006-07-29 08:30 [#01945379]
Points: 7877 Status: Lurker | Followup to chaosmachine: #01945371



what if I like some of them and dont like some of them?


 

offline Taffmonster from dog_belch (Japan) on 2006-07-29 09:12 [#01945401]
Points: 6196 Status: Lurker



lovely stuff


 

offline swift_jams from big sky on 2006-07-29 09:19 [#01945403]
Points: 7577 Status: Lurker



Favorite sunset pictures are h1280.jpg and the one before
it. Favorite picture overs all the frogs. Animals = Yes.

Do you just sneak up, or do you ever use a telephoto lens?


 

offline chaosmachine from Ottawa (Canada) on 2006-07-29 11:24 [#01945441]
Points: 2330 Status: Lurker | Followup to swift_jams: #01945403



the frog pictures were taken from a distance of about 5 feet
with a telephoto.


 

offline J198 from Maastricht (Netherlands, The) on 2006-07-29 12:07 [#01945452]
Points: 7342 Status: Lurker | Followup to chaosmachine: #01945441 | Show recordbag



your reply is very zen. very impressive. i could learn from
this.



 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2006-07-29 12:12 [#01945457]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker



did you get to h jaroen?


 

offline swift_jams from big sky on 2006-07-29 16:26 [#01945563]
Points: 7577 Status: Lurker



I just got 5 rolls of film developed from my home-made
filter shots. Once I get back home I'll post them, LOADS of
beautiful stuff that surpasses anything I've done.


 

offline DeLtoiD from Ontario on 2006-07-30 16:32 [#01946249]
Points: 2934 Status: Lurker



these are great. i haven't been to champlain since i was a
little kid.



 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2006-07-30 16:49 [#01946265]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



why not use HDR, chaos?


 

offline chaosmachine from Ottawa (Canada) on 2006-07-30 18:59 [#01946332]
Points: 2330 Status: Lurker



because i think hdr is lame :)

hdr is the next "lens flare" of photoshop cliches..


 

offline Taffmonster from dog_belch (Japan) on 2006-07-30 19:00 [#01946334]
Points: 6196 Status: Lurker | Followup to swift_jams: #01945563



did you ever up those pics?


 

offline virginpusher from County Clare on 2006-07-30 19:04 [#01946337]
Points: 27325 Status: Lurker



I like F. It would be perfectly complimented by high 60's or
low 70s for temp and a nice cool breeze!

I and J are great. The sky looks fantastic

Thanks for sharing these!


 

offline dog_belch from Netherlands, The on 2006-07-30 19:05 [#01946339]
Points: 15098 Status: Addict | Show recordbag



Sunsets + Photogpraphy (Digital) x Canada = Oh Right


 

offline mortsto-x from Trondheim/Bodø (Norway) on 2006-07-30 19:05 [#01946340]
Points: 8062 Status: Lurker | Followup to chaosmachine: #01945197



Nice pics. I've posted this before, but anyway
midnightsun in the mountains (webcam)


 

offline swift_jams from big sky on 2006-07-30 20:26 [#01946403]
Points: 7577 Status: Lurker | Followup to Taffmonster: #01946334



Not home yet. They'll be up Tuesday evening or Wednesday.


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2006-07-31 19:56 [#01947037]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



HDR is the next "lens flare" of images?

dood, so you don't want a perfectly exposed image?

you'd rather have blown highs and shit detail in the
shadows?

meh, ok


 

offline chaosmachine from Ottawa (Canada) on 2006-07-31 21:22 [#01947076]
Points: 2330 Status: Lurker | Followup to elusive: #01947037



the thing is, they're not perfectly exposed. it uses
tone mapping to fake the exposure, and most of the time,
it looks really cheap, imho..

photoshop's hdr effect is characterized by a flat, unnatural
look that just screams 'overprocessed' to me. just look at
the example in that article if you want to see what i mean.

true hdr images (not the tone mapped photoshop plugin kind)
can't even be displayed on a normal crt or lcd monitor. CRTs
are limited to 8-bits per channel, and most LCDs only manage
6-bits with selective dithering..

you can buy true 12-bit LCDs, but they cost about ten
thousand dollars and require a specialized graphics card.
hopefully these will become common place in a few years, and
we'll be able to enjoy real hdr images, without having to
use plugins to squeeze 4092 levels of brightness into a
medium that can only display 256.


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2006-08-01 08:01 [#01947283]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



lol


 


Messageboard index