* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #860 / Revived #080 on 2024 10 09 *

Thank you. The swamp is richly colored in spring and summer, and that is the only time we see the swamp creatures out and about. If you look closely you'll spot another alligator in the background on the right. There were about a half dozen there the day I took this one.

Thanks. Since the swamp was decimated in a storm several years ago, my once pristine compositions are now littered with the debris from the many trees that tumbled into the water back then. Cypress and tupelo don't rot easily so they'll be there a while. I'm trying to learn to love its new look.

The gator in front appears to me to have lost an eye. He is the biggest of the residents, usually the swamp is just a hangout for the young ones.

Thanks. I totally agree with you about Topaz and I don't use it much because of these quirks. I was hoping for a fix I didn't have to mitigate with layers and brushes but it appears that's not gonna be possible. I made a quick revision to the problem areas, attached below.

Thanks, I always hope these companies will find ways to mitigate within the ap, but for me, the best solution is usually what you suggested here, layers and masks. I'm attaching a quick revision with your suggestion below.

Thanks Chris. No, I'm used to these guys. We have them turn up in subdivisions, in people's garages, on golf courses. This summer one showed up on the kids' soccer field. A common occurrence I encounter at the swamp is out of state folks who pull up planning to hike the trail, and when I or someone else excitedly tells them "there's alligators sunning in there today!", they turn and bolt to their cars.

[]
(/a/Rxndnxp7iAjeh9QVRWSwsjrCvh7RSRi6kKM8eCLfMwwL3ekPfXaAzsJwEXpyfnV2/27101/?shva=1)

Revision to fight off the effects of Topaz...

It really depends on the "story" you want to tell.

The two people are a distraction for me and I would clone them out.

Highlighting the base of the steps and a bit to its right in post suggests a fork in the road theme, which looks better to me, inviting the viewers' eyes to choose which direction to go next into the scene - up the steps or down the "tunnel".

Outstanding. Lots of people are getting good auroras at the moment. It's the rooflines that make these special. The roofs underline that these skies aren't just wonderful events from the far tundra regions, the show has come to suburbia. Then there is the composition. The gables have been positioned to give directional flow with the lights. The last shot is a total knockout for this reason.
Great work.

I like 1 and 2 and I don’t like 3 and 4.

In 3 and 4, the structures in the forground obscure the subject, the aurora, which is in the background.

You don't normally put the subject in the background and I don't see any valid reason to make an exception in the last two images.

See above:

2 is 4 without the house, it's abstract. My family know the house and have a memory of standing in the same spot, it gives them a direct connection which photo 2 does not. Besides I only have a 35mm which makes capturing the scale of it (it's huge when overhead, from 60 miles up to over 200) together with it's proximity a challenge. Besides, I couldn't find an angle where it was in front of the house.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means you can't see it.

Since you said we could edit, I'll show you a rough approximation of what I had in mind. I agree the houses add something in terms of story and geometry but the bright parts of the rightmost house in this one were a little bothersome for me so I toned the bright parts down by adding shadow.
Also added a little clarity to bring out more of those beautiful stars.

.

That's all well and good but I'm just posting on how I see the images and why.

No worries Dan. Though I have to say that your opinion seems quite static as in you don't even seem to attempt to see that of others. Even in your reply above you have cut everything but your opinion. In my experience a static opinion is one that also stops learning and so has a shelf life amongst those that move on.

Your opinion is static as well.

You're not giving me any reason to consider changing my oponion.

Absolutely you can edit. I posted some of the raw files earlier, please have a go if you want, I'd be interested. There is are an number of problems with photographing the Aroura which I'd like to try and get an angle on. One is it is huge, and deceptive as you only have one viewpoint and no accurate frame of reference. It is a ring that forms round a latitude dependent on strength. When right overhead it looks like shot 2, Look along it toward the NE and the ribbons tower up into the upper atmosphere (200 miles up). It also moves, so any photo is blurred compared to reality and the closer you are to the action/the more active it is the blur is quite apparent and hides the shape further reducing any reference points. Another is that although it is fairly low light the red is clearly visible so probably not so dim that our vision vision has shifted towards blue/green and luminosity as it does in low light. All photos are abstracted.

With the shot you edited, my wide angle is a 35mm lens on a Z5 so I have to be close to the house to be able to tilt the camera far enough up. If I did actually have a wider angled lens it may help. But it's a perspective problem when it's overhead, it may appear to fill the sky but try conveying that in a single photo, the wider you go the smaller it may look. You need to be standing back from it to get that fill the frame look, see Photo 1 which is exactly that. My neighbor took some shots earlier in the evening with a wider lens that I'm eager to see.

The colour is the other problem. Below is a far more accurate depiction of how it looks to the human eye, with the correct W/B (you need to see it full screen, the thumbnail against the white of the web page is like viewing with a light on). It's not as luminous green to saturated yellow as I've seen in some photos. But hey, when vying for attention on social media that yellow/blue contrast and those reds that a warmer colour balance and pushed vibrance/contrast sliders give... Who can compete?

I'd hazard a guess that almost all photos of auroras are time exposures taken on tripods. Longer exposures are needed to see the colour range. Nope. I'm not going to open the can of worms about what is and isn't "natural" in these cases. Or other cases.

Yes, between 2 and 3 secs at ISO1600. The problem is not about reality, that's long out of the window. It's about finding a level of WOW that's different but still relates to the actual Aroura. The colours in most photos are the result of heavy contrast and saturation adjustments on top of a far too warm W/B because that produces the biggest WOW colours, they are the result of what the software will always do when you use the global sliders in the most common way, and as such they have become the common standard of what Aroura photos are expected to look like. If you see what I mean. I'm trying to find something different.

I certainly see what you mean.
A couple of months ago I was in central Australia and saw some shots taken during the last big burst of auroras around the globe. The photographer thought he was taking shots of stars above Uluru and had set exposure for around 20 seconds, iso 1600 and about F2. He was stunned when he looked at the image and found he had a green curtain aurora behind Uluru - way too far north to see an aurora australis, you would have thought. He hadn't seen anything in the sky as he took the shot. It needed the time exposure to show what was lurking.

This photo plays some tricks on me until I properly look at it full screen and allow the other cues to put things right. The vertical lines of the reflections to the right of the tree dominate the horizontal lines of the water ripples and the other elements and I get the impression I am looking at an image rotated to the left 90 degrees.
I like the subdued tones. They are what we would expect in a dark murky swamp with creatures we may not want to be too personal with - although the turtles are a wonderful catch along with one eye - lost in an argument or maybe blinking? Viewed up close his claws look quite metallic, alien. I wonder if that's a play of the light or result of Topaz or a bit of both?
Very nice image that I imagine would have been a hard one to get right under the conditions.

Your scenery shots of the hills / valleys, fields / forests are always captivating. I read people saying certain lenses render very well and cameras capturing colours a certain way. I can't know but I guess you may have what they are talking about. The yellows of the sunlit field in the second are quite surreal.

Hi Bryan
Thanks, glad you like them 😊

You can usually see the equipment I’m using in the EXIF.
Recently, it is nearly always been the Nikon Z7 + the lenses I have with me.
My current favourite lens is the Nikon Z 24-120 /F4. It is a sharp “S-grade” lens with a versatile focal range and plenty fast enough for landscape work.
It has some really nice optical properties. And works often as a one-lens solution for hiking. Both of these images came through that lens.

For wider angle shots I usually take the Nikon Z 14-30 /F4. It’s also a very good quality “S-grade” lens, reasonably small with a flexible range of focal lengths

Recently I bought the new Viltrox 16mm /F1.8 which seems to be even better in terms of sharpness all the way out to the edge.

I think when people talk about “the nice colours” that one particular camera shows vs. another, they are usually talking about JPG images “straight out of the camera”.
But I never use that method and only process from RAW.
When using RAW and developing yourself, the resulting colours you’ll get in the final image are more or less “up to you”.
I try and keep them sort of realistic and similar to what I experienced at the scene. Which is not necessarily the same as what the camera will record!
I will modify the WB and increase the saturation and/or brightness of the different colours accordingly. I’ll change the tone curve values for the whole image and also for particular areas of the image to achieve that “reality” and a pleasing image.
But I think the main factor that effects the final image is looking for scenes where the natural light is good and interesting to start with 😊

Thank you minnie.

My DxO free trial finished a week or so ago so I am without access to a tool I am happy to raise shadows with. It is quite expensive but I believe they have good black Friday deals and not too long to wait.

Thanks Chris,
not the largest raptor but he has all the attributes.

In times like this I may switch back to single point focus and single shot to get a few sharper images but quickly revert to burst settings in case he takes off. Always a dilemma because I don't want to miss in flight if it presents.

Thanks Fireplace,

I have to say I didn't specifically acquire my kit for birding nor wildlife although they have to be my favourite subjects. My Panasonic G9 m43 was the next step up from my little FZ300 and the PL 100-400mm a budget breaking jump (even though 2nd hand) to a lens fit for the task. It is interesting to note that a lot of the passionate birders mostly use m43 OM 1s as they are the best camera for moving and or distant wildlife. The point is that 20MP is enough for good IQ (if not the best) and the smaller sensor allows faster readout therefore higher % of action shot keepers and also for smaller, lighter, less expensive lenses for equivalent reach. One day I may venture into FF for better scenery shots etc, but I doubt I would buy the necessary lenses for wildlife. My 100-400mm weighs ~ 1Kg and gives 800mm equivalent. Lower quality 600mm FF lenses start about 2Kg and the better they are the heavier they get. That's a lot to hold still for any length of time.

That's certainly not my experience.

Personally, I wouldn't use smaller than APS-C.