It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
patagonialukeI continue to have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to landscapes. Would welcome any critique / feedback on this one. I like it for the most part when it's fully blown up, but don't find it all that inspiring shrunk down. Was also debating whether the flare helped, in terms of kinda mirroring the shadow line, or just looks distracting.
for big landscapes like this, think about balance and movement, which have a lot of overlap.
balance, is it composed in a way that the elements of the image complement each other spacially? are you including exactly the elements you want to describe the scene but not too much that it loses its focus? is there negative space that unbalances the photo? or maybe for some photos you want to intentionally unbalance the photo to emphasize one part.
movement, where is the viewer's eye going to snap first? what is the path that the eye might travel after they first look at it? can you work with different shapes and lines in your scene to create a "flow" to the image, giving it some movement, bringing it to life?
for this photo, maybe too much focus on the washed out sun glare part of the valley. the brightness of the roof in the foreground is a little distracting to the eye. there is good movement with the line of the shadow, but that movement doesn't really lead anywhere.
gravelfor big landscapes like this, think about balance and movement, which have a lot of overlap.
balance, is it composed in a way that the elements of the image complement each other spacially? are you including exactly the elements you want to describe the scene but not too much that it loses its focus? is there negative space that unbalances the photo? or maybe for some photos you want to intentionally unbalance the photo to emphasize one part.
movement, where is the viewer's eye going to snap first? what is the path that the eye might travel after they first look at it? can you work with different shapes and lines in your scene to create a "flow" to the image, giving it some movement, bringing it to life?
for this photo, maybe too much focus on the washed out sun glare part of the valley. the brightness of the roof in the foreground is a little distracting to the eye. there is good movement with the line of the shadow, but that movement doesn't really lead anywhere.
ThaLoraxTre Cime! What a beautiful hike. I did it 3 years ago. Catching the milky way over it is amazing. What's the red from?
My point and shoot camera shot that's framed on my wall
It sure is! A place i want to visit again for sure. The red is from light pollution (most likely from
cortina d'ampezzo). Though i must admit, that image was my first try working with an astro specific software and i might have overdone it a tad.
I slept in my tent right below that hut, that is precisely were the shot was taken.
Took a starsniff in 2017, i have a chronic addiction now.
People have been getting more critical of this cind of photography as it is easy to fake perfect compositions.
The position of the milky way in my images is not just combined in PS in a pleasing way. In all my astro images i take multiple sky and ground shots for stacking and combine them correctly using a reference frame i take at the start of my sessions.
Our galaxys core and rho ophiuchis jewels are my absolute favourite area in the night sky.
Stacking in DSS
Removal of light pollution, star reduction and stretching in Pixinsight
Removal of chromatic abberation in Photoshop
Noise reduction with Topaz denoise AI
Total time spent on this one piece of work wise has most likely broken the day mark. Enjoy peeps
swisssteezeTook a starsniff in 2017, i have a chronic addiction now.
People have been getting more critical of this cind of photography as it is easy to fake perfect compositions.
The position of the milky way in my images is not just combined in PS in a pleasing way. In all my astro images i take multiple sky and ground shots for stacking and combine them correctly using a reference frame i take at the start of my sessions.
Our galaxys core and rho ophiuchis jewels are my absolute favourite area in the night sky.
Stacking in DSS
Removal of light pollution, star reduction and stretching in Pixinsight
Removal of chromatic abberation in Photoshop
Noise reduction with Topaz denoise AI
Total time spent on this one piece of work wise has most likely broken the day mark. Enjoy peeps
Fantastic stuff. What lens/body/mount/exposure time did you use for the M31 photo?
coronaFantastic stuff. What lens/body/mount/exposure time did you use for the M31 photo?
Thanks a lot!
The M31 image is actually my first try with a new lens and tracker i just got:
Body: Nikon d850
lens: Tamron 150-600mm g2 (@600mm f6.3)
Tracker: iOptron skyguider pro, with an extended counterweight bar and 2 weights on there.
All of that on my flimsy old tripod, really need a new one.
Exposure time was 1min each with a total of 30 exposure. You want to go to the point where the core of stars are just about to be overexposed but are not quite yet. Starcolour is what gives deepspace images that extra touch.
If you happen to own or are going to buy a startracker get the longest exposures times you can. No amount of stacked images can beat exposure lenght. Many nebulas and details just get lost in the noise, which they also did in this M31 shot.
Most videos and forums will tell you to "SHOOT WIDE OPEN". That does get you more light but also uses the most outer edges of the glass elements in your lens. In all cases (some very expensive exeptions) that will lead to chromatic aberration (purple/blue halos around stars) and your stars getting angel wings. To keep things looking even and realisitc stopping down you lens by one or two stops usually does the trick. At longer focal lenghts ( around 200mm above) those problems become less noticable. But at something like 14mm, lawd jesus those stars put their halloween costumes on.
swisssteezeTook a starsniff in 2017, i have a chronic addiction now.
People have been getting more critical of this cind of photography as it is easy to fake perfect compositions.
The position of the milky way in my images is not just combined in PS in a pleasing way. In all my astro images i take multiple sky and ground shots for stacking and combine them correctly using a reference frame i take at the start of my sessions.
Our galaxys core and rho ophiuchis jewels are my absolute favourite area in the night sky.
Stacking in DSS
Removal of light pollution, star reduction and stretching in Pixinsight
Removal of chromatic abberation in Photoshop
Noise reduction with Topaz denoise AI
Total time spent on this one piece of work wise has most likely broken the day mark. Enjoy peeps
The northern hemisphere sadly only sees the milky way core for a few months during summer. That is why i decided to modify a camera to capture more of the h-alpha emission nebula this winter. This is Cygns (top), Sadr Region (butterfly looking thingy) and the veil nebula (hiding in a cloud mid left). Ima freeze my ass off this winter
This are some pictures I took with my analog cameras over the past years, some of New Zealand, others from Japan, two or three from a trip I did to Berlin and the first three are from Mayrhofen
1337Yo dudes! Finally updated my website to reflect my current portfolio as much as I can. Would love some C&C from you guys.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv http://jamiewalter.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Canis_lupusIs this on film, if so what's your setup. Very impressive!
thanks so much. yeah i only shoot film really these days. i have a canon elan 7 with the shitty plastic canon 1.8 50mm because it is just so light and i can feel okay about beating the shit out of it. i don't develop my own film but i scan it myself at home to 3600dpi TIF files, i will do minor temperature changes and tone adjustments. the home scanning to me is the most important step here with film...
gravelthanks so much. yeah i only shoot film really these days. i have a canon elan 7 with the shitty plastic canon 1.8 50mm because it is just so light and i can feel okay about beating the shit out of it. i don't develop my own film but i scan it myself at home to 3600dpi TIF files, i will do minor temperature changes and tone adjustments. the home scanning to me is the most important step here with film...
Canis_lupusSweet! I normally shoot digital with my sony a7II but i've been meaning to get into film photography as well.
it's awesome and very rewarding. fully replaced my desire to shoot anything digitally (no disrespect for digital tho) and i think it made me a lot better at visualizing for taking photos. i would recommend trying it out especially if you are nearby to a local film lab where you can have your negatives developed and scanned. it is an ongoing investment because you always need to buy more film and process it, but honestly it is not that spendy per shot. a roll of 36 shots will last me anywhere from 5 days to 3 months.
DingoSeanprobably because 8 or 9 years ago or whenever I was posting shit, I would just post whatever shit i took recently rather than my actual good work.
It blows my mind whenever I go back and look at my work from that long ago and remember what i thought was good.
