I had a yellow filter and sometimes I used that, but not often. Usually there weren't any clouds at all! It was in the middle of the long drought that we had in TN this summer.
--shannon On Sep 21, 2007, at 8:33 PM, Sauerwald Mark wrote:
Shannon Would a red filter to darken the sky have helped? I don't know if you had any interesting cloud formations but use of various coloured filters to shift the contrast ratios between elements is often usefull. As an aside, I am a big sucker for clouds. My teen age daughter is also a photographer, and a couple of years ago we did a photo trip to the southwest. Each day I would set the alarm clock for a bit before sunrise, and would check what the clouds looked like, the deal that we had struck was that if there were 'good clouds' then we would get up and go out and shoot at sunrise, if the sky was flat, then we would sleep in. My daughter who normally would sleep in got really into it, and ended up getting really enthusiatic about some of the clouds in the mornings! I often select a filter to bring contrast between the clouds and the sky. Mark --- Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:======================================================================= ======================================I was working on a project this summer where I photographed every fence post along a fence row on my road in TN. Then I came back to Houston and started processing the negatives. Some of them look pretty flat; that is, the leaves and branches and vines in the foreground are all the same value. Sometimes the sky is dense on the negative, and so technically the negative has a normal range, but there are no values in between the dark leaves in the foreground and the bright sky or pasture in the background. I think this is because I shot the negatives around 6 pm on most days, right at sunset. I did this mainly because it finally cooled off at that time of day, and also because I didn't want a lot of light effects--cast shadows, dappled light etc--interfering with the texture of the leaves and branches. I wanted a kind of flat light. But evidently I went too far. I like this time of day for photographing, because of this even, flat light; but maybe I should have gone out an hour earlier? Or tried to stretch out the values in the leaves a little more? I was using ddx 1+6, and I have another box that I exposed for processing with ddx 1+4, so maybe those will work out better. I sort of knew it wasn't a great idea to meter the leaves and then meter the sky and not meter anything in between but I did it anyway. In fact there wasn't anything in between those two values usually. I've had this problem before in landscapes, where all the values "on the ground" are compressed and look flat, and the sky is perfect, but so what? If the main subject of interest is flat, the photograph looks flat. What do other people do in this situation? Go out earlier in the day? Ignore the sky and let it blow out? --shannonTo unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there._______________________________________________________________________ _____________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.http://farechase.yahoo.com/======================================================================= ====================================== To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
