| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2011 11:04:11 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am starting to get enough of a catalog that I can start trying to recover some shots I like, but didn't like the sky at the time. I'm by no means an expert yet, as you can probably see, but I have to say CS5 makes stuff like this really quite easy. I have the catalog divided into folders by focal length, 16mm, 24mm, 32mm, 50mm, 70mm, 105mm. I then go through my catalog trying to find a sky that has the sun in the correct location (although it's easy to flip horizontally if it's correctly to the side but on the wrong side).
Original:
New sky from catalog:
 |
Main image light from the left. I could swear the cloud light's from the upper right?
R. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 12:11:33 AM · #27 |
You aren't too far off. My catalog isn't that big yet.
Looking at photographer's ephemeris, the Lavender shot was on 7/11 at 8:00 with the sun almost 90 degrees to the left and at 22 degrees altitude. The cloud shot was on 11/8 at 11:27AM with the sun nearly straight behind but slightly to the right. Interestingly even though it was 30 minutes before noon the sun was only at 27 degrees. Pretty amazing how low the sun is even at noon in the winter up here. I guess I could really consider shooting all day during that time.
I had some 90 degrees to the sun shots, but they were complete overcast and that wouldn't have looked right with the strong shadows. I probably should have flipped the clouds before I inserted them. I left them this way because the brighter clouds are on the side the sun is on trying to give that illusion.
Message edited by author 2011-02-15 00:12:05. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 12:23:41 AM · #28 |
First off...ephemeris...that required a dictionary.
Keep posting. I'd like to see more examples. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 12:24:25 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Jason, when you get the opportunity do some photo merges of the best formations.
I use a prime lens - either 50 or 100mm depending on how much of the formation I want to capture. With the horizon as a guide, I handhold 6 shots across (camera in portrait), move up about 1/2 frame, shoot 6 more across, move up 1/2 frame, shoot 6 more across. I try to overlap about half frame in all directions and work rapidly to avoid cloud movement. Then I merge the 18 shots in PS. This gives me about a 11,000 x 5,000 pixel file.
This lets me import the file as a Smart Object and re-size to match the focal length of the photo I'm working on. Most importantly, a cloud catalog needs to be useful when we are shooting 50M files with our 5D Mark V's. You don't want to have to put one of your puny 5D Mark II cloud files in the background of a 50M landscape file. |
Steve, can you post a series and the final product? |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 12:29:04 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
First off...ephemeris...that required a dictionary.
Keep posting. I'd like to see more examples. |
Dude. You don't know the program? I use it a ton for planning shoots out in the bush.
The Photographer's Ephemeris |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 12:30:33 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Jason, when you get the opportunity do some photo merges of the best formations.
I use a prime lens - either 50 or 100mm depending on how much of the formation I want to capture. With the horizon as a guide, I handhold 6 shots across (camera in portrait), move up about 1/2 frame, shoot 6 more across, move up 1/2 frame, shoot 6 more across. I try to overlap about half frame in all directions and work rapidly to avoid cloud movement. Then I merge the 18 shots in PS. This gives me about a 11,000 x 5,000 pixel file.
This lets me import the file as a Smart Object and re-size to match the focal length of the photo I'm working on. Most importantly, a cloud catalog needs to be useful when we are shooting 50M files with our 5D Mark V's. You don't want to have to put one of your puny 5D Mark II cloud files in the background of a 50M landscape file. |
This is really intriguing. One issue I would have is that you don't have easy access to changing the color temperature and tint after you've stitched the photos. Also, how do you tell what would be the equivalent of 28mm or 50mm? |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 12:41:35 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
First off...ephemeris...that required a dictionary.
Keep posting. I'd like to see more examples. |
Dude. You don't know the program? I use it a ton for planning shoots out in the bush.
The Photographer's Ephemeris |
Thanks for the link Jason. I'll definitely use this. I've been using this app, similar, but not as detailed. It does let me know when to head out. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 12:44:17 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Jason, when you get the opportunity do some photo merges of the best formations.
|
This is really intriguing. One issue I would have is that you don't have easy access to changing the color temperature and tint after you've stitched the photos. Also, how do you tell what would be the equivalent of 28mm or 50mm? |
If it's a large 16bit tiff why would it be difficult to manipulate the white balance?
2nd point...keyword or edit the exif data of the merged file. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 01:26:22 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
If it's a large 16bit tiff why would it be difficult to manipulate the white balance? |
You know, I don't use TIFF much. Does it retain the same info as RAW? |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 01:39:07 AM · #35 |
This is a timely topic, I've obtained a collection of clouds as there have been some amazing formations at times. Loved both the sunset photos shown!
I remember reading a story about a Pilot who had taken a collection of cloud formations when he would be flying, it would be an amazing collection to see.
This has inspired me to keep taking cloud photos. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 01:41:56 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
If it's a large 16bit tiff why would it be difficult to manipulate the white balance? |
You know, I don't use TIFF much. Does it retain the same info as RAW? |
No. The TIFF is processed, in my mind it's similar to a PSD file. I use it to save layered versions or a full size 16 bit, flattened version ready for resizing and printing. As far as I know, you can't use JPEG if you want a 16-bit version of your processed RAW file.
In Steve's example, I can envision a large, layered, 16-bit, TIFF/PSD, that you can crop and resize as needed. Probably don't need the layered version. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 01:57:17 AM · #37 |
If you're going to do sun-sensitive shooting, this is a must go-to: //photoephemeris.com/
It'll help you determine the directionality of the sun at all hours of the day or night and from specific locations. I've used it several times and I was able to plan around the sun's location perfectly. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 02:21:41 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One issue I would have is that you don't have easy access to changing the color temperature and tint after you've stitched the photos. Also, how do you tell what would be the equivalent of 28mm or 50mm? |
Both of the instances where I actually incorporated the clouds into a photo I was working in b/w so color wasn't an issue. Although, importing a .psd as a smart layer would make it pretty flexible for color matching.
And, I would assume if I have a file shot with a 50mm lens and want to match it to a 28mm file I would shrink the smart object by half? I just eyeball it until it looks like I want it. Mother Nature usually doesn't put 28mm clouds in her 28mm landscapes anyway.
Ben, the clouds in this photo were from a large photo-merged file. The actual photo itself is about 10,000 pixels wide so the cloud file had to be larger than that to be able to crop and not lose detail (match resolution).
Message edited by author 2011-02-15 02:28:56. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 11:34:40 AM · #39 |
Did you make the shot look like it was shooting over the top of a little knoll?
I've heard of smart layers in CS5, but I haven't explored them much. I'll have to check that out. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 12:23:16 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did you make the shot look like it was shooting over the top of a little knoll? |
Ha! More like placing the whole scene above the clouds, and have the fog roll in. Not the best example for what you would use it for (realism), just an example of using a cloud catalog. This is probably a better example, but even here I was more interested in matching the diagonal of the clouds to the diagonal of the shadows on the ground, and not concerned with the direction of the light:
The important thing is to make a cloud catalog that will be useful 5-10 years down the road. I ran into problems when I tried to import my single 10D cloud files into my single 5D files and that is the reason I started making the larger cloud catalog files. (As well as large texture, background, etc. files)... it was either that or buy a Hasselblad.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2011 01:33:10 PM · #41 |
I'm enjoying looking back at shots and trying to find ones that might benefit from clouds. I may work this one up, although it looks like a pretty overhead sun.
A side challenge may be fun, although people would have to have time to collect catalogs. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 02:13:09 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm enjoying looking back at shots and trying to find ones that might benefit from clouds. I may work this one up, although it looks like a pretty overhead sun. |
I love that one the way it is and think clouds would detract, but would be fun to see.
Another thing to consider when adding clouds is how you will be perceived as a photographer. You may not want the word "composite" associated with your photography. After all, what is the biggest sin - adding a cloud to an empty sky, or adding a child to a previously empty beach. It's a rep that seems a one way street. Just something to consider.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2011 02:40:02 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm enjoying looking back at shots and trying to find ones that might benefit from clouds. I may work this one up, although it looks like a pretty overhead sun. |
I love that one the way it is and think clouds would detract, but would be fun to see.
Another thing to consider when adding clouds is how you will be perceived as a photographer. You may not want the word "composite" associated with your photography. After all, what is the biggest sin - adding a cloud to an empty sky, or adding a child to a previously empty beach. It's a rep that seems a one way street. Just something to consider. |
Well, of course here on DPC we can't do this. But out in the real world my goal is to do this well enough nobody will notice. I don't fall in the school of thought where I need to reveal my techniques and label something a "composite". IIRC Bear has said that Ansel replaced skies in some of his shots. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 03:31:28 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm enjoying looking back at shots and trying to find ones that might benefit from clouds. I may work this one up, although it looks like a pretty overhead sun. |
I love that one the way it is and think clouds would detract, but would be fun to see.
Another thing to consider when adding clouds is how you will be perceived as a photographer. You may not want the word "composite" associated with your photography. After all, what is the biggest sin - adding a cloud to an empty sky, or adding a child to a previously empty beach. It's a rep that seems a one way street. Just something to consider. |
Well, of course here on DPC we can't do this. But out in the real world my goal is to do this well enough nobody will notice. I don't fall in the school of thought where I need to reveal my techniques and label something a "composite". IIRC Bear has said that Ansel replaced skies in some of his shots. |
Well then, you should also include star-filled skies, moons, etc., etc. in your catalog. What's a proper landscape at dusk without a full moon? Moon transits and phases are easy to figure, so no one will know the difference. I won't tell.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2011 03:37:19 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
IIRC Bear has said that Ansel replaced skies in some of his shots. |
NO. I never said that. As far as I know, he never did this. He would burn the heck out of his skies, but I'm not aware he ever did a composite, with a sky added for drama.
R. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 04:20:24 PM · #46 |
| Hmmm, I seem to recall hearing that somewhere. Maybe it's a legend. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 02:12:16 AM EDT.
