|
|
|
Ferran Rial
{K:6670} 11/6/2005
|
Wooow Barry, what a beautiful portfolio!!! I wish to get a capture like any of yours. Your landscapes are simply outstanding. Impressive.
Thanks for your comment.
best wishes,
ferran
|
|
|
|
First Last
{K:6897} 4/8/2005
|
Looks like a piece of art. Beautiful composition Barry! Perfect timing as well.
Excellent work!
Thanks for teaching about the filters.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Smith
{K:861} 3/22/2005
|
Lovely shot Barry, love the boulder strewn stream/beck leading you into the picture.
Regards Steve.
|
|
|
|
Serge Moscow
{K:-2917} 1/9/2005
|
Barry, thank you. Sorry, I was not attentive enought.
Regards,
Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Barry Wakelin
{K:7838} 1/8/2005
|
Serge, as I said in my replay, I'm using ND grads, not straight ND filters. The sky was four stops brighter than the water which is too much for the camera to cope with so I toned the sky down by about 2.5 stops. f/22 gave me a hyperfocal distance of 0.7m so everything from 0.35m to infinity was in focus.
|
|
|
|
|
Serge Moscow
{K:-2917} 1/8/2005
|
Barry, thanks for reply. Let me precise one moment.
Your wrote: "I needed to use f/22 to get both the foreground rocks (0.5m away) and the background mountain (several hundred metres away) in focus and I needed to use the ND grad to tone down the sky or I would have ended up with a white sky or black foreground"
* * *
f/22 is a very small value, firstly. Why you need ND to tone down sky? It would be quite logical for f/2, for e.g.
Then, ND acts both to rocks and sky. If you'd used graduated filter, I understand. But simple ND? It could not help for equalizing of lights and shadows. Or I do not understand something?
|
|
|
|
|
James Hager
{K:6285} 1/8/2005
|
I like this shot better than the landscape version because the stream is more dominant. In the landscape, the stream doesn't look as pleasing to me, and my eye is drawn to the blue patch of sky in the upper left away from the path of the stream.
|
|
|
|
Fadel J
{K:13974} 1/7/2005
|
Simply amazing compositon, colors, and exposure! I also love the effect of the long exposure on the water and clouds.
|
|
|
|
|
Barry Wakelin
{K:7838} 1/6/2005
|
Sergei, thanks for your comment. I used the long exposure here for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I needed to use f/22 to get both the foreground rocks (0.5m away) and the background mountain (several hundred metres away) in focus and I needed to use the ND grad to tone down the sky or I would have ended up with a white sky or black foreground and I needed the polariser to remove the grey reflections from the water that would have drowned out the white highlights that give the image its dynamism. This lot meant a six second exposure. Even if I'd used, say, f/8 this would still have been a 2/3 second exposure and the water would still have blurred. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, this image only works because the white highlights against the dark polarised water show the dynamics of the water and its flow through the image. Its these movement lines that draws the eye through the image. Capturing a moment in time wouldn't have captured these flow lines only a rough and tumble of random white. Hope this explains everything!
|
|
|
|
|
Andrej V
{K:6693} 1/5/2005
|
Beautiful shot!
I low long opening shots. great look of water and composition!
ANdrej
|
|
|
|
Judi Liosatos
{K:34047} 1/5/2005
|
Beautiful soft flow of the water. Well done.
Judi
|
|
|
|
|
cessy karina
{K:14205} 1/5/2005
|
awesome shot, very nice composition, and I love that silky water
|
|
|
|
|
Serge Moscow
{K:-2917} 1/5/2005
|
Interesting idea. Unfortunately, so long exposure does not allow to shot clouds sharply (strong wind?). Why you choose this variant, it looks like that it was enough light for 1/30, for e.g.? I know, that many photographers like such water - but for me it's too "unnatural".
Regards,
Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Margriet van der Ent
{K:1317} 1/5/2005
|
Very nice view ..i wish i was there..great picture
|
|
0 
