Storm Clouds

[farlymac]

Time for another critiquing session.


00490001_2 by br1078phot, on Flickr


00490002_2 by br1078phot, on Flickr


00490004_2 by br1078phot, on Flickr


00490015_1 by br1078phot, on Flickr

Konica C35/yellow filter
Kodak 100 TMAX

PF

 

[farlymac]

Man, you guys and gals must really hate this one. One week, 93 views, and no comments. What gives?

PF

 

[tlitody]

I think clouds are not favourites in the rangefinder community. I posted a couple some months ago and views are virtually non existant.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=151319&ppuser=36943
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=151318&ppuser=36943

Clouds on 135 format film doesn't work very well unless you have exremely well defined clouds. Looking at dark base of clouds doen't work very well. Also 135 film just isn't enough to capture the detail which is in clouds. You need to use very slow film for best effect IMO.
And scanning for web must top quality or you lose all the detail and end up with a mush.

See clyde butchers site for what is possible.

http://www.clydebutcher.com/clyde-butcher-larger_image.cfm?largephoto=FloridaBay3_L.jpg
http://www.clydebutcher.com/clyde-butcher-larger_image.cfm?largephoto=little_duck_key_L.jpg

 

[SciAggie]

I have just seen this - I'll give my two cents worth. These are the kinds of shots I struggle with. I'm sure the sky was amazing as you were there taking the photos - the feeling just doesn't transfer with the image; at least for me. They seem to be more than snapshots but less than fine art.

I hope you take this in the spirit it is given. I'm just a guy with an opinion - and a free one at that.

 

[alfredian]

Eyes for skies

Eyes for skies

I like the drama-clouds very much - I try to get stuff like this when/where I can. You have the eye for it and my question would have been "did you use a filter?" Which you did, a yellow one. I tend to go with orange or even red, but they matter much more if there is actual sky showing.

Hilly/mountain terrain is great, and you have some of that. I usually run up against situations where the sky is great, but I have something (unlike yours) that's either dull or dreck on the horizon line. Or the ever-present, unnoticed until you get them developed, wires.

I'll be on the Atlantic shore in a week, and it's almost worth wishing for bad weather for the photo ops.

This set definitely gets some stars, especially the one with the building in the middle distance. Thanks

 

[farlymac]

Okay, that's more like it.

I wholeheartedly agree with the critiques from tlitody and SciAggie. I took these with the Konica because it was the one loaded up, and the light tends to fade fast up in the mountains. Odd cropping was done 1: to use the full width of the frame if possible, and 2: to eliminate the construction equipment parked all over the place. And I would have liked to have gotten the best scans, but I can't afford to do that when I don't know what I've got. (I really need to get the new scanner set up and running.)

Photos like these are by their nature, grab shots, and take a bit of luck to get that one ulitimate image. The shot I was going for disappeared with the light as I was manuvering around to get a better angle. And alfredian, it is nice to be in an area devoid of power lines.

I'll just keep trying to be ready for the next opportunity, and keep the suggestions above in mind.

PF

ps: Thanks for the Clyde Butcher link

 

[farlymac]

I think it depends on what direction the light is coming from, and how dark you want the sky to look, to use an O-Y instead of a Y.

PF

 

[tlitody]

I think with clouds the detail is so fine and delicate that anything more than a yellow will lose that fine detail. Sure it will increase contrast but increasing contrast always loses fine detail. The balance between fine detail and contrast in clouds is about as difficult as it gets. But if you just want oppressive drama and aren't worried about fine detail then Y-O is for you. It's soooo easy to over cook it.

 

[hausen]

One from mine last week.


Storm arriving from the west! by BigHausen, on Flickr

 

[Trooper]

I have just seen this - I'll give my two cents worth. These are the kinds of shots I struggle with. I'm sure the sky was amazing as you were there taking the photos - the feeling just doesn't transfer with the image; at least for me. They seem to be more than snapshots but less than fine art.

I hope you take this in the spirit it is given. I'm just a guy with an opinion - and a free one at that.

Almost my thoughts exactly. But, I think #2 and #3 have great potential if more earth was included in the frame. This would relieve the snapshot feel, and give a more and dramatic feel. Alternatively, I think those two would look nice if you cut off most of the upper sky and had a panorama format, as most of the contrast is near the horizon anyways.

 

[fotomeow]

I think with clouds the detail is so fine and delicate that anything more than a yellow will lose that fine detail. Sure it will increase contrast but increasing contrast always loses fine detail. The balance between fine detail and contrast in clouds is about as difficult as it gets. But if you just want oppressive drama and aren't worried about fine detail then Y-O is for you. It's soooo easy to over cook it.

Good points indeed. the best combo to attain proper detail and contrast is using a Lg format, or at least med format gear. Personally, I'm willing to trade detail for tasteful contrast, you know, not artificial looking or overly dramatic contrast.
But therein lies the challenge: how to get the right balance of enough of both to try and reproduce with pics what we experience in person.

and upon further thought: sometimes changing contrast will help bring out detail. eg, in the shots above, I can see some rain/showers in the distance just barely, but those showers blends in with the surrounding "micro contrast" (contrast just around the showers, not the contrast of the entire pic). My 2cents would be to slightly increase that micro contrast to bring out the detail of the showers themselves. and also to slighty increase the exposure of the nearby landscape itself.

 

[Rico]

Trailing edge of a big storm moving into Lake Michigan was shot digitally using Leitz Elmarit 90. A lot of post-processing was needed to elevate the cloud contrast over the afternoon haze.

 

[segedi]

I'd like to see more tonality in the forground. For me, these silhouette a bit too much - but I tend to think of a good photograph with clouds is better than a good cloud photograph. The last shot (00490015_1) offers some of this, but I'd like to see a bit more contrast in the clouds as mentioned by fotomeow.

 

[farlymac]

Alright then, I'll take these suggestions, do a little electronic magic, and see what comes out.

PF

 

[dave lackey]

Well, one thing you might try is to shoot three or four overlapping photos and stitch a panorama together in Photoshop. Also, a filter would help bring out some dramatic contrasts.

Good luck and post your next photos.🙂 I like thos "God beams" but they are not easy to see....

 

[farlymac]

Dave, I did use a filter. And with the foreground I had to work with, a regular panorama was out of the question. I guess you had to be there.

However, when shooting with a slightly wide camera like the Konica C35, it's not too hard to come up with a panoramic effect:

Originally unposted

00490011_1 by br1078phot, on Flickr

Panorama crop

00490011_2 by br1078phot, on Flickr

Lightened foreground

00490011_1_2 by br1078phot, on Flickr

I'm pretty sure no one wanted to see the dumpster, and all the brush piled around it, so I was walking around the top of the hill to get the best views, with a minimum of foreground waste.

As for some of the other suggestions:

As posted

00490002_2 by br1078phot, on Flickr

Variation 1 (Original)

00490002_2_2 by br1078phot, on Flickr

Variation 2

00490002_2_3 by br1078phot, on Flickr

Do the construction trailers make it more, or less, like a snapshot? I know some like that kind of detail, as it makes an image 'real', but every photo is an interpretation of what the photographer sees, especially when shooting b&w.

As posted

00490004_2 by br1078phot, on Flickr

Original

00490004_2_2 by br1078phot, on Flickr

Took the trailers out again. Besides, there wasn't much of them as I was cropping in camera on this shot.

Then on to the rain pic:

As posted

00490015_1 by br1078phot, on Flickr

Variation 1

00490015_2 by br1078phot, on Flickr

Tried to bring out the rain a bit more, but the sunlight is really blaring through, so you have to kind of add it in your mind what the light is shining on is rain falling on the ground.

Maybe next time I'll go ahead and opt for the better scans. But then that means taking less photos to stay in the budget. It's a delicate balance, you see.

I appreciate all the input here. It's kind of like being back in school.

PF

 

[farlymac]

Nice work, Rico.

PF

 

[Richard G]

2 and 4 I like best, because the other two are silhouettes as others pointed out. Number 4 gives some sense of the light given off by the sky. Contrast like aperture64's photograph is what I like with foreground and clouds. I don't buy the limitation of 135 format necessarily, but as also pointed out, some acknowledgment of the potential limitation of the format is necessary to work for an image that is effective.