Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Burma samples  (Read 1407 times)
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 498


« on: November 23, 2012, 12:40:08 AM »
ReplyReply

A few shots form my recent 12 day visit to Burma (Myanmar). I used the same kit I had in Jerusalem ( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=71202.0 ): Fujifilm X-Pro1 with 18, 35 and 60 mm Fujinon lenses, this time I added the new X-E1 body as spare.

First two sunrise pictures from Bagan, handing out food to the monks at 5 AM in the village of Nyaung U, sweeping the grounds of Shwedagon Pagoda in Rangoon.

Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6782


« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2012, 09:41:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like you enjoyed Burma a lot. I like your photos. The first two capture the mood of the place very well. The soft, early day light is perfect. I'm very fond of the near-far composition of the second image. It gives depth. The wide aspect-ratio of the first is perfect to show the immensity of the temples. The third and fourth images are different but I like them too, especially the third one. You caught the eyes of the young monk quite well and it's not easy at all.

Bravo!
Logged

Francois
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2012, 09:52:05 AM »
ReplyReply

+1, especially #2.
Logged

shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2012, 10:49:57 AM »
ReplyReply

And another vote for #2
Logged
marvpelkey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2012, 12:05:33 PM »
ReplyReply

All great images. I particularly like #3 and the use of d-o-f to emphasize the attention on the second boy in line. Well captured. Although I like #2, I find the blown out sun too distracting. If I hold my hand over the sun, the colours/tones in the rest of the image come alive.

Marv
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2012, 12:31:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Marv, The sun's bright but it's not "blown out." The sun is specular. It's always featureless in an ordinary photograph.
Logged

nemo295
Guest
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2012, 01:16:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Marv, The sun's bright but it's not "blown out." The sun is specular. It's always featureless in an ordinary photograph.

Sorry, Russ, but you're wrong. "Specular", when used in photography, refers to a highlight created by the reflection of a light source. The sun in that photo isn't a reflection. And, yes, it's blown out. But then, the sun will always be blown out unless it's either behind a heavy cloud or something, or you drastically underexpose the foreground. When the sun isn't overexposed, and looking like a blown out white hole in a photograph, it appears as a yellow disk.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 01:27:07 PM by Doug Frost » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2012, 01:46:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry Doug, but in photography "specular" refers to a light source as well as to the reflection of a light source. The sun can't be "blown" because it's a featureless light source. You're never going to reduce the brightness of the sun in normal photographic practice to the point where it's not featureless. If a cloud covers the sun, what you have is a picture of a bright part of a cloud, not a picture of the sun. And no matter how much you underexpose the foreground the sun's still going to be featureless. You can reduce it to a gray spot by reducing the highlights, but it'll still be featureless. Of course in Photoshop you could cover the sun with, say, a sharkskin or a paisley pattern, but people will laugh at you.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7308


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2012, 01:54:56 PM »
ReplyReply

+1 #2

Erik

+1, especially #2.
Logged

nemo295
Guest
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2012, 04:14:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry Doug, but in photography "specular" refers to a light source as well as to the reflection of a light source. The sun can't be "blown" because it's a featureless light source. You're never going to reduce the brightness of the sun in normal photographic practice to the point where it's not featureless. If a cloud covers the sun, what you have is a picture of a bright part of a cloud, not a picture of the sun. And no matter how much you underexpose the foreground the sun's still going to be featureless. You can reduce it to a gray spot by reducing the highlights, but it'll still be featureless. Of course in Photoshop you could cover the sun with, say, a sharkskin or a paisley pattern, but people will laugh at you.

Russ, you're still wrong, on both counts. In photography, "specular" is absolutely NOT synonymous with "light source". Many people, including some pro photographers who should know better, make a similar mistake and confuse "specular" with "point source light". There is no such thing as a "specular source." The term would be an oxymoron. I suggest you look up the word "specular" in the dictionary.

As for the sun, it most certainly can be overexposed (and almost always is), and it has nothing to do with whether any features are visible on it. They do exist, of course, but one needs a very large telescope with special filters to see actual features on the sun. In a color photograph, an overexposed sun looks like a white hole, and a properly exposed sun looks like a featureless yellow disk.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2012, 06:25:01 PM »
ReplyReply

The dictionary isn't going to help, Doug. Fact is, usage has overcome your dictionary definition of "specular," just as usage, unfortunately, has overcome the correct meaning of "begs the question." Nowadays the dictionary is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and on this point it's a notch or two behind the degradation of the language.

But definitions, dictionary or otherwise, don't really matter. The idea that a properly exposed sun is a yellow disk just doesn't fit the physics of the situation. What you're telling me is that the sun emits more green and red light than blue. The fact is that the sun emits white light, which maxes out all three color channels. It's true that red and green are transmitted through the atmosphere slightly more readily than blue, so there's a very slight yellow shift through a clear sky, but atmospheric conditions would have to be perfect for the naked sun to appear yellow in a photograph.

Try paisley. I won't embarrass you by laughing in public.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 04:43:05 AM by RSL » Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2012, 10:06:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Bye, Doug. It's a silly argument, so it stops here.
Logged

nemo295
Guest
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2012, 10:17:29 AM »
ReplyReply

The dictionary isn't going to help, Doug. Fact is, usage has overcome your dictionary definition of "specular," just as usage, unfortunately, has overcome the correct meaning of "begs the question." Nowadays the dictionary is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and on this point it's a notch or two behind the degradation of the language.

But definitions, dictionary or otherwise, don't really matter. The idea that a properly exposed sun is a yellow disk just doesn't fit the physics of the situation. What you're telling me is that the sun emits more green and red light than blue. The fact is that the sun emits white light, which maxes out all three color channels. It's true that red and green are transmitted through the atmosphere slightly more readily than blue, so there's a very slight yellow shift through a clear sky, but atmospheric conditions would have to be perfect for the naked sun to appear yellow in a photograph.

Try paisley. I won't embarrass you by laughing in public.


You're the laughable one Russ. Sorry, but your obsession with pedantry doesn't entitle you to decide what words mean. The term "specular highlight" has always meant, and continues mean, a highlight created by a reflection, most usually, but not exclusively, a light source, hence its relevance to photography.

Your little lesson in astronomy was very interesting, if not particularly germane. Yes, the sun's light is very nearly white--in outer space. However, most of us earthlings don't have the luxury of owning a space ship and have to content ourselves with photographing the sun on terra firma, where it's light is filtered through the Earth's atmosphere. Hence it's yellowness. And perfect atmospheric conditions are hardy necessary for it to appear yellow in a photograph, although one might need a 10-stop ND filter on the lens if the sun isn't low enough on the horizon (lower on the horizon = more atmosphere for sunlight to pass through = yellower sun). No paisley needed.

I suggest, rather than laughing, you surprise us all and admit that you're wrong.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2012, 10:29:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Oh, by the way, the picture you're using as an avatar probably involves a copyright violation.
Logged

nemo295
Guest
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2012, 10:51:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Oh, by the way, the picture you're using as an avatar probably involves a copyright violation.

Sour grapes, Russ?
Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 728


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2012, 07:22:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Petrus
very beautiful moods..
I like to go there!

Pieter kers

Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad