Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Image of the Steelworks at Port Talbot at Sunrise yesterday taken from the Wharf.
Thank you for the support on yesterday's image and have a good day all.
A fine composition, Tom, love the early morning sunlight highlighting the grass in the foreground. Carol
Beautiful colour and tones, a really pleasant image
You have made something beautiful out of a steel mill. That is a notable achievement.
Excellent comp, I love the foreground detail against the fabulous sunset, super shot
fantastic light tom top shot
A brilliant well lit image,
Wonderful light across the frosty fg.
nice light through the smoke and on the frost. the buildings are leaning to the left.lesley
Lovely light on the FG
Great shot with beautiful lighting.
Bit of distortion to the buildings I feel, yet still a very nice image.
Distortion yes.......that is the nature of the 17-40 lens unfortunately.I have tried to correct the buildings but the horizon would have been wayout.
Anyway people seem to like this picture.
Thank you very much all.
Can't say I miss the place Tom but good memories of some lovely colour on the way to and from work...captured just as I remebered it. Good compositionand good colour.
I would say it is possible to correct the buildings but my skills in ps are very limited..I would suggest some critique from people's method's would help....Cassiecat does lots of vertical / horizontals in her building images. I had a go at the Select all / Edit / Transform / Distortion advice that Platchet gave me the other day..it was better but still not correct.
Like yourself I am a fairly new owner of the 5D2 and this weekend I have had my 1st real chance to do some landscapes with it...and was disappointed at my results. I was not aware there are banding issues with the camera not having seen any before but in this image I think I see some of the issues I have had myself...particularly in the reeds and the building - when viewed large I believe there are some banding lines?. Interested to know if you have noticed any of this?
Like the composition and good light/ colours Tom, agree that the building are slightly out but the foreground subject is strong enough to hold your attention.
OH, My What a glorious morning!
A good warm glow to this one.Good shot.I don't have any problem with converging verticals.I understand the need for straight verticals in a publication or whatever,but for this site I like to see a variety of takes for buildings !!
> Distortion yes.......that is the nature of the 17-40 lens unfortunately.
Not really, no. The 17-40mm has some barrel distortion at the wide end and corresponding pincushion at the long end but that's not much of an issue unless you have straight lines close to and roughly parallel to the edges of the frame: such lines will bow outwards a little at the wide end and inwards at the long end of the focal length range.
Here, the main effect is divergence of the verticals: that is, vertical lines in the scene are being rendered as diagonals that spread out towards the top of the frame. This not a lens defect and you'll see this with any lens, including your own eyes. It is caused by the camera being tilted downwards; the opposite effect is that, when you look up at a tall building from the street, the vertical lines appear to lean inwards. The effect is somewhat accentuated by wide-angle lenses but this is only because verticals farther from the centre of the frame lean more and wide-angle lenses include more stuff farther from the centre.
In this image, the perspective is rather off-putting because, although the foreground plant is a strong subject, essentially all of the verticals are in the top-left quadrant. This means that they're all leaning to the left, which makes it look like the camera wasn't level. There are three possible solutions (which can, of course, be applied in combination).
Get down lower and hold the camera level. That will, of course, affect the composition of the shot but, in this case, that would push the foreground plant farther into the sky, so I don't think that would hurt.
Apply a software perspective correction. Probably not an option in this case as you end up having to crop the image so you'd probably end up losing bits of the steel works. Framing the shot wider than you think you need gives you more scope for this kind of editing.
Spend a few grand on tilt-shift lenses — you'll need the 17mm, 24mm and 45mm versions to give you the same range as your 17-40mm. These allow you to hold the camera level but tilt the lens downwards to get the composition you want without the converging/diverging perspective. Lensbabys work on the same principle and are much cheaper but not designed to give quite the same quality of results.
> when viewed large I believe there are some banding lines?
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see any posterization (as in the lower cat image on this Wikipedia page but, if that's what you're seeing in your own photos, the usual cause is over-processing of JPEG files. For example, JPEG can essentially only represent 256 shades of any colour and a typical sky would only contain a fairly restricted range of these — in this case, about 100-150, where 0 is the darkest (actually pure black) and 255 is the pure colour.
When you make adjustments such as levels, curves or shadows and highlights that have a big effect on the image, this limited range of tones hurts you. In the original image, the colours are still in bands but a band of tone 100 next to 101, next to 102 and so on, looks like a smooth transition However, if you were to spread the range of 100-150 out to 50-200 (for example, by making a big curves adjustment), the bands start to become visible. Everything that's a single tone in the original image will be a single in the processed image: the software can't break up the band of tone 100 so it maps the whole of it to tone 50. The whole of tone 101 gets sent to 53 and the whole of 102 gets sent to 56. But there's a noticeable difference between tones 50, 53 and 56 so now you start to see the bands.
The solution to this is to shoot in RAW or to avoid big adjustments to the image in processing.
That is some explanation Dave and Blimey who do you think I am Rothschild...spend a couple of grand nice if I had it.It is a raw image and yes I may have overcooked the shadow and highlight slider.
Thanks for your time.
That's some glow Tom, foreground is lite superbly
OK the building is a little tilted but.......I bloody love it Tom.
Gets the rare Platchet award.
Good juxtaposition and light (steelwork hot vs icy foreground) works real well mate.
Rather an arty study , controlling the elements. Lovely image !
Lovely tones in this Tom.
> who do you think I am Rothschild...spend a couple of grand
You mean my hopes that you'd buy one for me, too, are going to come to nothing? Oh well. It was worth a try.
LOL great chat above dudes
Love this pic
Wonderful image. The light is quite magical.
Wonderful light and composition Tom
This is awesome and makes me envious. Wonderful capture. Must get to bed earlier to catch a sunrise, but Adobe photoshop is so addictive at 2.00am in the morning LOL
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st March 2015 - 31st March 2015
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View March's Photo Month Calendar