![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Disappearing road
Oct. 23rd, 2013 11:46 amA photo taken from the passenger seat of a moving car. I liked how the road seemed to be swallowed up by the mountains (lava flows from the Teide volcano on Tenerife, Canaries).
And to demonstrate how it would look converted to black and white:
And to demonstrate how it would look converted to black and white:
Crazy Horse Memorial
Jan. 23rd, 2013 12:14 pmCrazy Horse Memorial in South Dakota: the scale model in front shows how the real memorial cut out the rock in the back is going to look.
The photo is almost 9 years old. Below the cut a picture from last year. By the looks of it, there's still a bit of work to be done....
( March 2012 )
The photo is almost 9 years old. Below the cut a picture from last year. By the looks of it, there's still a bit of work to be done....
( March 2012 )
Depth of field: poppies and lighthouse
Jan. 14th, 2012 12:04 pmDepth of field is, in layman's terms, how much of your photo is sharp, from foreground to background. It helps draw the viewer's eye to the subject, the important part of the photo. Many portraits, for example, have a shallow depth of field: the person is in focus, the background is blurry, making the portrait "pop". In landscape photography, on the other hand, you usually want as much depth of field as possible, making everything sharp from foreground to background.
One of major (to me) advantages of a DSLR would be the larger variation in depth of field it gives the photographer to play with. As I don't have a DSLR, I have to make do with what my superzoom compact can offer me, which is far less variety. That said, I can still play with depth of field some:
Case in point, two photos taken on Schiermonnikoog, with a bunch of poppies in the foreground, and the lighthouse in the background.
In this particular case, I didn't even change the camera settings (both were taken at F6.3 for those interested), but I played a little with the zoom, and with positioning myself closer to or further away from the poppies.
One of major (to me) advantages of a DSLR would be the larger variation in depth of field it gives the photographer to play with. As I don't have a DSLR, I have to make do with what my superzoom compact can offer me, which is far less variety. That said, I can still play with depth of field some:
Case in point, two photos taken on Schiermonnikoog, with a bunch of poppies in the foreground, and the lighthouse in the background.
In the first photo (you may have to click them to better see the difference in the larger versions), the poppies in the foreground are blurred, while the lighthouse is in focus. | In the second photo, it's the other way round: the poppies are in focus, with the lighthouse more blurry in the background. |
In this particular case, I didn't even change the camera settings (both were taken at F6.3 for those interested), but I played a little with the zoom, and with positioning myself closer to or further away from the poppies.
Teton mountain range
Nov. 19th, 2011 11:52 amWhat a difference a day makes! Photography is all about light, and about being in the right place at the right time. When you take pictures around your house, you usually can wait until the light is exactly the way you want it before taking the shot. But when you're on holiday in far-off places, you don't usually have that luxury.
That's why the first shot was very disappointing for me. Going to see the pretty mountains! But where are they?
Fortunately, overnight, the fog lifted, so the next day, I went back to the same spot. And lo and behold!
Perhaps still not the greatest view they might've been, but a major improvement over the day before.
That's why the first shot was very disappointing for me. Going to see the pretty mountains! But where are they?
Fortunately, overnight, the fog lifted, so the next day, I went back to the same spot. And lo and behold!
Perhaps still not the greatest view they might've been, but a major improvement over the day before.
Lighthouse
Nov. 12th, 2011 01:22 pmUsually, taking photos by pointing the camera toward the sun isn't the best idea. However, if you have something blocking the actual sun, it can make for some interesting effects. Like this upward photo of the Faro de Pechiguera in Playa Blanca on Lanzarote.
By silhouetting the lighthouse and having a bit of sunburst around it, I think it's a rather different photo from "usual". As is proved by this version taken from the other side with the sun in my back.
*squints* Hm, it's also very phallic, I suppose...
By silhouetting the lighthouse and having a bit of sunburst around it, I think it's a rather different photo from "usual". As is proved by this version taken from the other side with the sun in my back.
*squints* Hm, it's also very phallic, I suppose...
Two photos for the price of one
Oct. 1st, 2011 11:33 amToday, I have two photos to share, which neatly illustrate (again) that sometimes having a person in your landscape will actually add to it instead of distract.
Here's a photo of a winding road leading through the Picos mountains in Spain, with steep cliffs looming over it:
Nice shot, but perhaps a little dull, wouldn't you agree?
Here's a photo of the same location, but this time with a passing motorbike. As you can see, the shutterspeed is slow enough to allow the biker to slightly blur, which I think adds even more to the photo: the biker's clearly not the subject here.
( Cut to spare the flist )
Personally, I like the second shot much better than the first. And I suspect that I got lucky with the biker; a car in the shot might've drawn too much attention to itself.
Here's a photo of a winding road leading through the Picos mountains in Spain, with steep cliffs looming over it:
Nice shot, but perhaps a little dull, wouldn't you agree?
Here's a photo of the same location, but this time with a passing motorbike. As you can see, the shutterspeed is slow enough to allow the biker to slightly blur, which I think adds even more to the photo: the biker's clearly not the subject here.
( Cut to spare the flist )
Personally, I like the second shot much better than the first. And I suspect that I got lucky with the biker; a car in the shot might've drawn too much attention to itself.
