Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Nature & Landscapes 
Thread started 15 Oct 2014 (Wednesday) 22:29
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

First attempt at Maroon Bells, CO... what did i do wrong?

 
digitalduck
Senior Member
Avatar
595 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Fargo, ND
     
Oct 15, 2014 22:29 |  #1

So this was my first attempt at capturing Maroon Bells and my first time seeing them... truly a marvel but realized i had something wrong just not sure where i went wrong... Aside from time of year of course..

Equipment: Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS
Canon 60D and
Generic "Cokin" like ND filters stacked 3 to make a 6 stop set... although now i want to buy just a screw on 7 or 10 stop brand name...


So here is my problem.. i wanted to make the water still but think I either left my shutter open too long or im not sure:

ISO 100
17mm
10 sec exspore
F 14

I had another shot where the water had a nice reflection and I wish I could take the reflection from that shot and put it in the first one but I shouldn't have to and should be able to get it right in camera first.

So im not sure where i went wrong to where i could have obtained somewhat glass like water and still maintained a reflection... or is it one or the other? I have seen shots where it looked like an ND wasnt used and perhaps the water was just still that day...

IMAGE: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/674/1HRPyE.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,254 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1541
Joined Dec 2006
     
Oct 15, 2014 22:53 |  #2

You cant really do both, blur moving water and get a reflection. The shots you see with crystal clear water and the reflection are not 10 second exposures unless the water is dead still.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digitalduck
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
595 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Fargo, ND
     
Oct 15, 2014 23:17 |  #3

Gotcha so definetely was my shutter ... i thought perhaps having a 6 stop ND combination would be a good place to start, but given that they werent quality and that the water did have some movement in it which is what made me think that it would require more time... BUT...

We had planned on getting up packing and heading back there one more time before heading home whne a big storm hit and everything was under a layer of clouds..no way I would have seen then so we had to go home... so next time :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SeattleSpeedster
Goldmember
Avatar
3,210 posts
Gallery: 567 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 6827
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Oct 15, 2014 23:27 |  #4

I would try earlier in the morning for still water


Fuji GFX50s and A7R II | Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Otus and 28mm f1.4 Otus | Fuji GF23mm and 32-64mm | Canon 200mm f1.8 | Zeiss 100-300mm | Zeiss and Canon 16-35mm f4 | Zeiss 135mm f2 | Voigtlander 10mm f5.6 | Zeiss and Sony 50mm f1.4 | DJI Mavic Pro 2 and Inspire 2 X5S drones | https://mikereidphotog​raphy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Harm
I don't always post, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis....
Avatar
48,620 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 478
Joined Jan 2008
     
Oct 16, 2014 11:00 |  #5

^ i agree. earlier in the day, when the winds aren't as psychotic, the waters are usually still.

you don't need anything on like a big stopper or anything like that - yes, an ND would be nice, but non-essential, when you can play about with something like Lightroom.

My personal extra is to use a polariser in the "wrong" orientation, as to mostly let in glaring light. That enhances the reflection.

IMAGE: http://harm.smugmug.com/Landscapes/NewHampshire/i-82Bckft/0/M/880A1589-M.jpg

SmugMug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2011
     
Oct 16, 2014 11:22 |  #6

Well a better time of day would improve this shot. The colors are muted and unfortunately you were a bit late to the party as half the aspens are bare.

As for the reflection your exposure might have been too long. You can smooth out ripples and get a decent reflection in wind-moved water, however too much can blur it some. It's tough to balance and it isn't always possible.

Other issues here is the grass in the lower right is a distraction. It also looks like you have water drops on your lens/filter or something as there are spots all over the photo which make it blurred.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digitalduck
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
595 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Fargo, ND
     
Oct 16, 2014 22:14 |  #7

Thank you everyone for your responses.. Seattle, i didnt even think of how the water would be early in the morning but it makes sense there will be less movement.

Harm, love the pic and yeah I guess I thought that there is water with a little movement which means i use my generic ND filters since i didnt invest in an actual one or set of ones... lesson learned that i might not even need one and if im going to use one use a decent one..

Numenorean: Yeah I know the time of year was bad, but was really my first time there at all and was hopeing for "something" i could still frame and put on the wall.. with what ive learned now, i could take it back and probably come out wiht something much better, given that i wouldnt have the ND issue ....great advice and i wish I had known this all before Aspen.. but now i know..that if you see water it doesnt mean you need an ND and epecially some generic 6stops at that lol Also, yeah, the water drops were from the bad generic plastic square Cokon type filters....:(

That brings up another question though...Regarding the type of filter...

Can I take a 6 stop ND screw on and basically get the same effect as a 10 and as a 4 if i just adjust my shutter to accommodate... i know the shutter wont be open as long so movement wont be the same... BUT what would be a good all around grade or amount of ND if you were to have a screw on and still achieve the results you want without having to adjust SS that much.....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,254 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1541
Joined Dec 2006
     
Oct 17, 2014 05:42 |  #8

The whole purpose of an ND filter is to extend your shutter speed at a given aperture, or use a larger aperture at a given speed. The amount of ND depends on the effect to want to achieve, I dont think its possible to recommend based on what you've asked. With that in mind most of the really dramatic stuff where they capture cloud movement is done with a 10 stop filter. Haida makes a reasonably priced one that doesnt have a strong color cast.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digitalduck
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
595 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Fargo, ND
     
Oct 18, 2014 08:58 |  #9

Guys, couple questions rather then make a new post just for this, but I have a couple more pics from the trip and was wondering what you think:

One of the things i wanted to do with the trip was get a decent pic of M Bells to hang on the wall.. since i don't really see that with the pics i took, i wanted to still use a pic to hang, even if it was smaller. Based on the pics below do you see any worth in using one for just 11x17 or something proportionate. Realistically since its my 3rd real landscape attempt and now that i have a better idea of exposure im almost (wall ready) lol Thoughts on pics below?

The point really is to replace them with better ones as i go.. just need to have the opportunities so wanted some "inbetween-ers"

1

IMAGE: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/F8NvXj.jpg
2
IMAGE: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/674/4kWm6k.jpg
3
IMAGE: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/908/5AzKdm.jpg
5
IMAGE: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/909/9Jzvgj.jpg
6
IMAGE: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/912/qlIpkk.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clark
Senior Member
Avatar
559 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Iowa
     
Oct 18, 2014 09:04 |  #10

These all look soft to me. Anyone else think that?


Um... Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,254 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1541
Joined Dec 2006
     
Oct 18, 2014 09:45 |  #11

Im viewing on my tablet so I'm not going to judge sharpness. The second shot in this new set seems to hsve a magenta cast to it, I like the shot well enough but would crop the bottom to lose the shoreline.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digitalduck
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
595 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Fargo, ND
     
Oct 18, 2014 09:50 |  #12

Thanks gonzo, i think thats actuslly from the generic nd filter combo, forgot that they can do that, cool ill fix it :)

Regarding sharpness and focus, I was in manual focus so I would use live view and zoom in on the peaks then manually adjust till they came in focus then take live view off and lock focus..

Update, went in adjusted my luminance in magenta and reds in #2




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
El ­ Duderino
Goldmember
Avatar
1,921 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Denver, CO
     
Oct 18, 2014 10:52 |  #13

I like the first pic in the OP. Next time, blend two images together. Do a 30 sec exposure for the sky, and another quick exposure (1/100 sec or whatever) for the reflection. Then blend them in PS.


Nikon D600 | Bower 14mm f/2.8 | Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR | Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR | Nikon 50mm f/1.8G | Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR
500px (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digitalduck
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
595 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Fargo, ND
     
Oct 18, 2014 11:50 |  #14

El Duderino wrote in post #17219733 (external link)
I like the first pic in the OP. Next time, blend two images together. Do a 30 sec exposure for the sky, and another quick exposure (1/100 sec or whatever) for the reflection. Then blend them in PS.

Thanks, i wish i had thought of that at the time, I guess i went into it thinking that as long as im exposing for my highlights and also achieving sharp focus along with the use of the ND that it would be the best method.. i wasn't even thinking of 2 exposures because in my mind that would be more of an hdr thing although now i see how that could have benefited me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digitalduck
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
595 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Fargo, ND
     
Oct 18, 2014 14:52 |  #15

LOL quick attempt at blending original with one with reflection in PS... (Hint, I dont usually do that haha)

IMAGE: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/OQQCBC.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,429 views & 0 likes for this thread
First attempt at Maroon Bells, CO... what did i do wrong?
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Nature & Landscapes 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is vttnguyen
995 guests, 326 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.