Jake's Backdoor Hippie-palooza, 2014 Edition
- Thread starter BackdoorArts
- Start date
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Thanks. The Bubble got chosen for Flickr Explore, which makes 2 images chosen in a week after nothing in 3 years, so I must be on someone's radar. I know it's a measure of specific activity and not necessarily a measure of "good" photography, but I have to say it's nice to have people checking out my work. A good way to start the new year, I suppose.
wud
Senior Member
No. They are looking because! it's amazing photography you do. Guess most of us looks at our own stuff and see what could have been done different, others just see the beauty when looking.
I looked through the videos on that onOne program, I think it's on my wishing list now
I like how you can change the details very gentle. Sent from Tapatalk
RockyNH_RIP
Senior Member
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I looked through the videos on that onOne program, I think it's on my wishing list now
When I first downloaded it I was looking at it with an eye to how similar to the Nik Collection it might be, and I really preferred (and still prefer) the Nik tools for most general editing. But I saw enough differences that I decided to spring for it when version 8 was released, primarily for Perfect Mask and Perfect Resize, two things not available in Nik. The more I use it the more I find some powerful tools in there. The Dynamic Contrast and Texture tools in Perfect Effects are very good. The textures can be done in Photoshop as well, but I find the onOne interface to be a lot easier to figure out (I've only tried PS texturing a couple times and imagine like anything else the more you do it the easier it gets). It's a nice compliment to the Nik Collection, though I'd still go with Nik if I had to choose only one. I'm almost inclined to recommend the Perfect Photo Suite in lieu of Photoshop for someone who is just starting out. It has many of the features but with an easier interface, and it can work standalone without the need for Lightroom or Photoshop to call it, as is required by the Nik Collection.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
2014-005: A Couple Winter Landscapes
Flickr link: Staying In By The Fire | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Flickr link: Running Waters Don't Freeze | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Flickr link: Staying In By The Fire | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Flickr link: Running Waters Don't Freeze | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Last edited:
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
@snaphappy, the bubble photo is with a 24-120mm, not a macro lens. Did I save you some money?
BTW, I should be uploading at sizes that do not require resizing, so the EXIF data should remain intact. Please let me know if you cannot see it - I can view it just fine using FxIF and Firefox.
Last edited:
RockyNH_RIP
Senior Member
Jake, Excellent... these are really beautiful, especially the 2nd one.. Nice job..
Pat in NH
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Mmmmm....I am loving these, Jake! They are very peaceful and serene.
It was peaceful and serene ... and 2 degrees. In the 5 minutes I was out of the car to shoot these my fingers went absolutely numb even with gloves on. I need to find a good set of really warm gloves that still let me work a camera.
dramtastic
Senior Member
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
The second one are very good! The first is to glowy for my taste.
Your exif are working now
It's funny, but when I reduce some pictures down to 1000px to post here the feel gets very different, and this is one of them. The "glow" is far less evident at size, and at the size I put on Flickr (Staying In By The Fire | Flickr - Photo Sharing!). Given that I'm shooting for a 365 I know that I might not post all of the images I put here on Flickr, so I export them separately. This is one where it doesn't translate well.
Question for you, Jake. Did you use either a circular polarizer or a neutral density filter for this shot? Just wondering how the water came out so still and smooth....*somewhat* lacking reflections. Or is that something you accomplished in post?
VERY dreamy!
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Question for you, Jake. Did you use either a circular polarizer or a neutral density filter for this shot? Just wondering how the water came out so still and smooth....*somewhat* lacking reflections. Or is that something you accomplished in post?
VERY dreamy!
Just an extremely cold morning, the sun was still behind the clouds, and there was a faint layer of fog on top of the water. I was careful in post to preserve the original look of the water while bringing out the detail in the trees and sky. Here's the image straight out of camera if you'd like to compare...
I worked mainly to pull out the contrast of the snow/crystals on the various branches with the rest of the tree. The snow we had was so dry that it barely stuck to anything that day, let alone 2 days later. But where I came to this area there were covered branches everywhere. I got out of the car and took a closer look and it seems that mist from the water had either been enough to get the snow sticky, or it was that which crystalized on the branches. Either way, I wanted to show the offset of those, but preserve the dreamy quality of the area. I waffled on keeping it cool or warming it up, but I like the warmer look.
I wasn't going to post this one as I couldn't get it to look right without it also looking over-cooked, but since the subject came up, here's a look at what the "snow" looked like. This is a mossy rock that stuck out of a feeder to this stream.
Michael J.
Senior Member
That's snow on the mossy rock??? Really? It looks like a very soft, fuzzy piece of material! Lol!
Actually there is a lot of detail in that snow, Jake. Enlarging the photo really shows an incredible amount of minute detail. I just did a quick check to see which lens you used--170mm--must be your f/4 zoom. That's a nice lens! Thanks for the information.
Actually there is a lot of detail in that snow, Jake. Enlarging the photo really shows an incredible amount of minute detail. I just did a quick check to see which lens you used--170mm--must be your f/4 zoom. That's a nice lens!
Thanks for the information. I don't think those exist. Absolutely beautiful photos by the way!
wud
Senior Member
Thats weird. Have you tried resizing over several times? To see if it makes it better?
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Maybe what I need to do is a better job of proofing before I upload. But here's the thing that really bugs me about this forum (sorry jdeg): It limits you to 1000 pixels on the long side for uploads, which I get for storage reasons, and it will resize and strip EXIF data if you go bigger. But even when upload at 1000px and I have to choose between presenting a very small image, which you really can't see and only some people will bother to click on so it expands, or presenting it "full size", which in reality isn't really full size but a compressed view of the full size image. Go to the image in question above, right-click on it and choose "View Image" (or whatever your browser offers like that), the image you get is the full 1000px image, and it''s larger than the "full size" image displayed (note: I've discovered that if I remove the frame to the right with the "New Threads", "Latest Posts", etc.) it finds the room to display properly. It does this on every browser I use on every monitor I have. So I have no real way of presenting photos in a photo forum that allow them to be displayed in-line as they were produced and viewed on my computer for everyone. That sort of sucks, if you ask me. I suppose I could produce them at 800px, but I got out of point and shoots and camera phones because I don't want to shoot at 800px any more.
Ach, now I'm just ranting. But you get my point, right?
I'm thinking what I may do from now on is post using the "Large Size" option, which will still compress the image, but allows you to click on it and see the 1000px image, where as the "Full Size" option does not allow you to click on it since it assumes it's displaying at full size even when it may not be. I'll also include links to the Flickr photo if I've uploaded it. In fact, I'll go back and update the images above later today so that they are consistent.