Show: Seascapes and Coastal Views

[Andrewmap]

Scarborough, 17th September 2020:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[comment23]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[mcgillro]

Clive - we had a storm early last week, and lots of flooding in nearby Napier. Lots of debris on the beach ....

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[mcgillro]

Walking friends spot

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

ted a rabbit hopping about above some ducks and ducklings. I couldn't see it, but guess what, the camera did

 

[Phil.H]

Another photo from the harbour wall at Whitby.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[rloewy]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[PJ2]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[John King]

View attachment 859128

Nice photo, PJ, but it is wise to steer clear of f/22 because of severe diffraction softening. f/8 would have given you all the depth of field you needed for this shot, and a much faster shutter speed.

 

[RichardC]

Nice photo, PJ, but it is wise to steer clear of f/22 because of severe diffraction softening. f/8 would have given you all the depth of field you needed for this shot, and a much faster shutter speed.

Agreed - but he wouldn't have been able to blur the water.

Neutral density filters (ND1000 etc) are your friends at the seaside if blurry water is your thing.

 

[mcgillro]

View from Clive to the mouth of the river, and the sea beyond:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[mcgillro]

And a couple of edits - playing in Luminar ....

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[John King]

@mcgillro , Rose, I think I prefer the richness and composition of colour in your original shot.

 

[mcgillro]

@mcgillro , Rose, I think I prefer the richness and composition of colour in your original shot.

Yes the edits have lost definition compared to the original. Really just playing with Luminar, but so prefer the Lightroom and PSE combo. Not that I do much in PSE.

 

[John King]

Yeah, I think I prefer to capture what I want when I press the button too. Almost every photo on my web site (or that I post here) is an unaltered camera image.

 

[Brownie]

Yes the edits have lost definition compared to the original. Really just playing with Luminar, but so prefer the Lightroom and PSE combo. Not that I do much in PSE.

That's up to you though. The more I play with my free copy of Luminar 3 the easier it is to get where I want. It can be ridiculously quick for things like snapshots of the grandkids. If a shot is important enough to really get into processing I will sometimes process on both DT and L3, then compare the jpg results side by side. At first DT won every round, but lately L3 has been winning a few here and there, which is clearly the result of learning the program's idiosyncrasies. When it comes to processing programs I think some do things better than others, but each have their strengths, and I am not convinced one is better than another. I think that if you spend enough time with any program you will get good results.

Ever hear of Paint.net? It was originally intended to be the replacement for MS Paint, but when MS abandoned the idea the developers turned it into an open source program. It's a fairly powerful stupid-simple program to use for processing jpg's. With layers, curves, levels, etc. and a lot of other features, and being laid out like any other MS program it feels very familiar the first time you open it. People laugh it off, but it works well. I don't use it that often anymore, but they still update it several times a year. Well worth the cost, which is nothing!

 

[mcgillro]

That's up to you though. The more I play with my free copy of Luminar 3 the easier it is to get where I want. It can be ridiculously quick for things like snapshots of the grandkids. If a shot is important enough to really get into processing I will sometimes process on both DT and L3, then compare the jpg results side by side. At first DT won every round, but lately L3 has been winning a few here and there, which is clearly the result of learning the program's idiosyncrasies. When it comes to processing programs I think some do things better than others, but each have their strengths, and I am not convinced one is better than another. I think that if you spend enough time with any program you will get good results.

Ever hear of Paint.net? It was originally intended to be the replacement for MS Paint, but when MS abandoned the idea the developers turned it into an open source program. It's a fairly powerful stupid-simple program to use for processing jpg's. With layers, curves, levels, etc. and a lot of other features, and being laid out like any other MS program it feels very familiar the first time you open it. People laugh it off, but it works well. I don't use it that often anymore, but they still update it several times a year. Well worth the cost, which is nothing!

Hmm - I think you are correct. I have been playing more with Luminar, and can see it has a place, especially with landscape. I do find it frustrating though that i can only edit one image at a time. I've tried importing a group, but no luck so far. That could well be my inexperience though.

No, not aware of Paint.net .... did use Picassa a long time ago, then some other prgrammes in Linux - digkam and GIMP. But went back to Windows when bought a DSLR.

 

[Brownie]

Hmm - I think you are correct. I have been playing more with Luminar, and can see it has a place, especially with landscape. I do find it frustrating though that i can only edit one image at a time. I've tried importing a group, but no luck so far. That could well be my inexperience though.

No, not aware of Paint.net .... did use Picassa a long time ago, then some other prgrammes in Linux - digkam and GIMP. But went back to Windows when bought a DSLR.

I just can't get along with GIMP. I have tried to like it, but it is clogged up with all of those silly Paint Shop features. If they made a striped down version that dealt with photos only I'd like it a lot better.

 

[mcgillro]

I just can't get along with GIMP. I have tried to like it, but it is clogged up with all of those silly Paint Shop features. If they made a striped down version that dealt with photos only I'd like it a lot better.

It's many years now since I used GIMP -probably about 14 years. It seemed to me to be powerful, but labour intensive from what I remember. But as I say a while ago ....

 

[PJ2]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[spdavies]

Whittington Park, Ka'u District, Big Island, Hawaii

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Olympus E-M1.MkIII, Oly 14-150