on 10/11/02 11:35 PM, Doggre@xxxxxxx at Doggre@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Zuiks,
>
> I posted a couple more pics for the two Jims. :-)
>
> One, a closeup of the Clark's Nuthatch, and the other, of the mountain
> itself. Also, a couple wildflower shots. I feel bad that I don't know the
> names of them. Indian paintbrush (the red ones)?
Great pictures -- getting close/bigger image really makes a difference with
the bird. Maybe you need a 400... <g>
>
> The bird was TOUGH. He would move about every five seconds, trying to catch
> the attention of the mom, dad, and daughters eating crackers and cheese to my
> left. He was looking for a handout. That's what his attention is focused
> on. That food. I probably could have taken 20 more shots with a
> wunderbrick, but...? I'm not really happy with this pic, either, but I was
> grabbing what opportunities I got.
I've got a neighbor who sets out birdseed for the birds. At least she cleans
up the patio daily... but the local wildlife is always around due to this
feedlot. I suspect there would be a lot of photo opportunities literally in
my back yard. I think she feeds the birds to entertain her cat, who sits in
the window watching the feeder for hours. It is an 'indoor' cat, never
outside, to the bird's relief I'm sure.
>
> I'm disappointed in the exposure of the mountain (and this is the best of
> several, sad to say). It WAS a hot and hazy day. I was in t-shirt at 7,000
> feet. So it wasn't Ansel Adams conditions. But still, how do I get the
> bright mountain & sky properly exposed without losing the foreground forest
> in darkness? One fella suggested a graduated ND filter. Any other ideas?
> Bracket like crazy? There is such a wide range of exposure difference
> between all that snow & ice and the dark green of the forest below, it's a
> REAL challenge. I should have used a UV filter at least. Better a
> polarizer. That would have helped, as I was 90 degrees from the sun. NOW I
> think of it!
Polarizer would be easy enough to carry, but you might find that even that
wouldn't be enough. Often the polarizer will darken the foliage also, as it
strips out reflections from the leaves. I got a Cokin setup in a bunch of
auction-buy stuff and it came with some graduated ND filters in different
densities. The Cokin setup allows you to slide the filter up and down to
vary where the 'line' would be in the image. It also rotates for vertical
shots... pretty good concept. The graduation is a straight line, so I don't
know how that would work with a non-level horizon like your mountain.
Another alternative is you could shoot two images (on a tripod) one exposed
for the sky and one for the land, and then scan and composite them in
Photoshop. I think my PS Elements has a bit on doing this in one of the
chapters. This would solve the non-straight horizon problem.
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=244547
>
> More feedback welcome. Sock it to me.
>
> Rich
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
wishing I had mountains like that in my backyard...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|